---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 42

                            Headlines

141 N. ALVARADO: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
33 UNION SQUARE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: City of Birmingham Alleges Environmental Contamination
AARP INC: Nichols Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 9th Cir.
ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Underway

ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway
ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway
ABBVIE INC: Restasis Antitrust Suit Against Allergan Ongoing
ALABAMA: Court Tosses Dixon's Motion for Class Certification

ALABAMA: Taylor Bid for Class Certification Junked
ALPINE TOWING: Faces Vargas Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Boone Alleges
AMERICAN BANKERS: March 9 Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought
AMERICAN CITY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Tracy Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway
APACHE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
APOLLO GLOBAL: ADT Shareholder Litigation Dismissed w/ Prejudice
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Still Pending

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Orders Remand of Fongers Suit to Illinois
APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked
AQUESTIVE THERA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action

ARCH INSURANCE: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by Oct. 20
ATHENEX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
AVANOS MEDICAL: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit vs KCC Concluded
BAKER CREEK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food

BERRY GLOBAL: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Howard Alleges
BIG PICTURE: March 22 Response Time to Class Cert. Bid Sought
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Payer Suit Removed to D.S.C.
BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Lopez Says
BRANDED GROUP: Stacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
BROWNING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUFFETS LLC: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for Sept. 30
C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response OK'd
C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response Sought

CARERITE CENTERS: McDonald Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Under FLSA
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Leszanczuk Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Pending
CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit
CERTIFIED MULTIMEDIA: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CHESAPEAKE DETENTION: Catchings Suit Seeks Class Certification
CHEVRON CORP: Faces San Francisco Herring Suit in Cal. State Court
CHEWY.COM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Dog Food Products Packaging
CHICAGO, IL: Taylor Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir.

CLARK & GENTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Avrahami Suit
CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Class Action
COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONTAINER STORE: Neal Sues for Invasion of Privacy

COPART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CORE & MAIN: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for July 2
CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

DIRECTV LLC: Federal Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in B&R Suit Pending
DROPBOX INC: Settlement Reached in California IPO Related Suit
E.L.F. COSMETICS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EAN SERVICES: Swiggum FSCA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

EAN SERVICES: Swiggum Says Web Transactions Illegally Monitored
EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

EHANG HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Suit Claims
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Dynamic Difficulty' Class-Action Suit Gets Dropped
ELEMENT MATERIALS:  Appeals Remand of Flores Labor Class Action
ENCORE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Cline Class Suit Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Favors Regency Defendants in Dieckman Suit
EPIC GAMES: Set to Settle Class Action Over Fortnite Loot Boxes
EPIC GAMES: Williams Sues Over Game's Manipulation of Minors
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due October 25

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Alhadeff Suit Removed to C.D. California
F21 OPCO: Taylor BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FABFITFUN INC: Gaston Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
FACEBOOK INC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 8
FALONI LAW: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

FANDANGO MEDIA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FEED PROJECTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
FLAUM APPETIZING: Final Approval of Collective Settlement Sought

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Severance Benefits
FRANCE: Families Join Suit After Deaths in Nursing Homes
FRED MEYER: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FURMO LLC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G4S SECURE: Snell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

GAIN CAPITAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Following FDA Report
GF MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Oct. 8
GLADDEN EQUIPMENT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GODADDY INC: Settlement Objector Files Notice of Appeal

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Report Collection
GOOGLE INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses Stadia Lawsuit
GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Seeks to Certify Class Action
GRIDDY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Price Gouging
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Reminds of June 6 Deadline

HAIN CELESTIAL: Albano Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
HAMILTON POINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims
HANWHA TECHWIN: Jacobs BIPA Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Robert A. Levy Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal

HEALTHY HALO: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
HORSEHEAD HOLDING: June 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Austin Sues Over Race Bias in the Workplace

HUMBOLDT BRONCOS: Court Weighs What to Do With Different Lawsuits
IMPINJ INC: Awaits Court Order to Discontinue Plymouth Suit
IMPINJ INC: Consolidated Class Suit in Washington Concluded
INDEPENDENCE HOLDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
INSIGHT VENTURE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due April 29

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRWIN NATURALS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JENNER'S POND: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by March 8
Johnson & Johnson: Loses Appeal in Australian Pelvic Mesh Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Lawsuit Heads to Appeals Court
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fagan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Premium Charges
LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK: Satterley Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
LUCKY 2: FLSA Settlement Class Wins Collective Certification
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending

MAD COW: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASHABLE INC: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by June 11
MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Hearing Scheduled in March 2021
MAVEN COALITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: PI Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
MDL 2179: Oil Spill Incident Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
MDL 2741: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Cal. Week Killer Product Suit
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action

METLIFE INC: Notice of Proposed Settlement Approved
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
MH SUB I: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class Action in Jackson Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Must File Class Status Bid by March 5

MIDLAND CREDIT: Clark Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Garellek Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Oliveros Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
MINNESOTA: Daniel Larsen Seeks to Certify Class Action
MONEY METALS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conklin Alleges
MOOREGROUP CORP: Porter Seeks to Certify Construction Worker Class
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Settlement Class Gets Certification

MULTIPLAN CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MY HOME: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by April 27
NASAU COUNTY, NY: LaPierre, et al., Seek to Certify Class
NEBULA CARAVEL: Feiteira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Aristy-Vercessi
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Chavis-Myrick
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
NORTHERN BREWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR: Showalter Sues Over Unpaid Wages
OCINOMLED LTD: Faces Aldape Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Morris Settlement Pending
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin August 30
OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing

OMUSUBI CORPORATION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONTRAK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline
ONTRAK INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ONTRAK INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ONTRAK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline

ORMAT TECH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
ORTLAND GENERAL: Consolidated Securities Suit in Oregon Ongoing
P.F. CHANG: 9th Circuit Claws Back "Krab Mix" Suit Dismissal
PANINI AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAYWARD INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PEARL LAW: Fields Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
PEPE DISPLAYS: Faces Juarez Suit Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime
PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Sinkfield FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PERSONAL TOUCH: Underpays Home Health Aides, Brown Suit Alleges
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PORRIDGE LLC: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Suit Says
PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Trojan Class Suit Upheld
PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
PROSHARES TRUST II: Di Scala Purported Class Suit Underway
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Behfarin Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Facing Stone Putative Class Suit in NJ
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Crawford Suit Consolidated with Warren Suit
RALPH LAUREN: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline
RBC DOMINION: Banks, Insurance Firms Owe Employee Vacation Pay
RBC DOMINION: Faces $800M Class Suit Over Vacation & Holiday Pay
REDWOOD LOGISTICS: Kavanagh Asserts Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says

RLJ II: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Alleges
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Removed to D. Oregon
ROHRER CORPORATION: Illegally Stored Fingerprints, Bryer Suit Says
RUSHMORE LOAN: August 20 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
RUSHMORE LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 20

RYDER SYSTEM: Bid to Dismiss Key West Policy Suit Pending
SD BULLION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Papers Related to Class Cert. Bid Due March 15
SILFEX INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lopez Suit Claims
SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Powell Family Files Suit in North Dakota

SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Seeks Healthcare Providers' Unpaid Wages
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Wasa Medical & Calvo Suits Consolidated
SPARTANBURG, SC: Judge Endorses Denial of Lovelace Class Cert. Bid
STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing
STEMILT AG: Gomez Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Accent Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission
TANNER TRAINING: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders
TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Pending
THERA GROUP: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware
TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway
TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Appeals Suit Ruling to 1st Cir.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivera Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
TRUEACCORD CORP: Tukin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California

TRUSTCO BANK: Jenkins Files Suit in N.D. New York
TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.
TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit as Drivers Demand Employee Rights
UNCLE HEGNA: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Employees

UNIBARNS TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Common Ground Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ S.C.
UNITED STATES: Faces Medina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSAL COIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
US FERTILITY: Mullinix Suit Removed to C.D. California

USA WINE & SPIRITS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VENUS ET FLEUR: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VERSO CORP: Living & Deceased Retirees Get Class Certification
WALGREEN CO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought

WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dilworth Claims
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed
WILLOWS INN: Settles $600,000 Suit Over Alleged Wage Theft
ZOOM VIDEO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 25
[*] 10 Auto Insurance Companies Face Lawsuits Over Pandemic Pricing

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements

                            *********

141 N. ALVARADO: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. 141 N. Alvarado, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21STCV06214 (Calif.
Super., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated challenging the reservation policies
and practices of a place of lodging regarding lack of information
provided on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the
Plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for him
in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip
in April of 2021 to the Los Angeles California, area. He chose the
Hollywood Inn Express South located at 141 N. Alvarado St., Los
Angeles, California because this hotel was at a desirable price and
location. Due to the Plaintiff’s condition, he is unable to, or
seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate, reach
objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from his
chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.

Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to
be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so
that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently
and safely. On January 24, 2021, while sitting bodily in
California, Plaintiff went to the
https://www.hollywoodinnexpresssouth.com/ seeking to book an
accessible room at the location. This Website reservation system is
owned and operated by the Defendants and permits guests to book
rooms at Hollywood Inn Express South. Plaintiff found that there
was insufficient information about the accessible features in the
"accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for him.

The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair
to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate
that transfer. But the Hotel reservation Website does not provide
any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible
guestroom toilets which is a critical information for him, he
adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

33 UNION SQUARE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 33 Union Square West,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. 33 Union Square West, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01835 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

33 Union Square West, Inc. -- http://www.unionsquarewines.com/--
is located in New York and is part of the Beer, Wine & Liquor
Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: City of Birmingham Alleges Environmental Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA, 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-00606-RMG
(D.S.C., March 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass,
defective design, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach
of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from environmental and economic injuries,
contamination and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's land,
surface and subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources, municipal
and real property caused by releases of the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities, municipalities,
or states of the serious environmental, human, and animal toxicity
concerns linked to the use and exposure to fluorinated AFFF foams.
As a result of the Defendants' acts or omissions, the Plaintiff has
incurred, is incurring, and will continue to incur substantial
economic damages related to the release of fluorinated PFAS
containing AFFF, the suit says.

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:                

         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

AARP INC: Nichols Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JEREMY NICHOLS and
LEON WILDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES INC., AARP INSURANCE PLAN,
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 3:20-cv-06616-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 1, 2020, the
lawsuit is a consumer class action seeking to recoup millions of
dollars on behalf of a class consisting of senior citizens and
disabled individuals residing in the State of California whom the
Defendants charged for illegal insurance commissions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have orchestrated an
elaborate scheme where AARP, as the de facto agent of UnitedHealth,
helps market, solicit and sell or renew coverage for UnitedHealth
Medicare Supplement insurance and generally administers the program
for UnitedHealth, in exchange for a 4.95% commission on Member
Contributions. The Defendants characterize the payments as a
"royalty" that UnitedHealth pays AARP in exchange for its use of
AARP's intellectual property to allow AARP to avoid oversight by
insurance regulators, and to allow AARP to avoid paying taxes on
the income it generates through insurance sales.

The Defendants' acts are unlawful because they violate California's
insurance law, and concomitantly violate the California Unfair
Competition Law, according to the complaint. Because AARP is not
licensed as an insurance agent, broker or consultant, it may not
collect a commission for its marketing, soliciting or
selling/renewing of UnitedHealth Medicare Supplement product on
behalf of UnitedHealth.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Nichols, et al. v. AARP,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-15364, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde Mediation
Questionnaire is due on March 9, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 31, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due by April 30, 2021;

   -- Appellants Jeremy Nichols and Leon Wilde opening brief is due
on June 9, 2021;

   -- Appellees AARP Insurance Plan, AARP Services, Inc., AARP,
Inc., UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and UnitedHealthcare Insurance
Company answering brief is due on July 9, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEREMY NICHOLS and LEON WILDE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

Defendants-Appellees AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., AARP
INSURANCE PLAN, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Meryl Macklin, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 675-1981
          E-mail: meryl.macklin@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          211 North Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2725
          E-mail: jsrussell@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Samantha Goldstein, Esq.
          Meaghan McLaine VerGow, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com  
                  samanthagoldstein@omm.com
                  mvergow@omm.com   

               - and -

          Damali A. Taylor, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8928
          E-mail: dtaylor@omm.com

ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Allergan Inc. continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Litigation.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations
and omissions regarding Allergan's former Actavis generics unit and
its alleged anticompetitive conduct with other generic drug
companies.

The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of
three purported class actions and one individual action that have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey as In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities
Litigation.

Another individual action in New Jersey state court was dismissed
in September 2020.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.

ABBVIE INC: Bystolic Antitrust Suit vs Forest Laboratories Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Forest Laboratories, LLC
continues to defend a consolidated purported class action suit
entitled, In re: Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others
generally alleging that 2012 and 2013 patent litigation settlements
involving Bystolic with six generic manufacturers violated federal
and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade
practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of Bystolic, are consolidated as In re:
Bystolic Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that he dismissal of the
complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Humira
(Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, has been appealed.

Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's
settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira
patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws.

The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.

In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.

ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Forest Laboratories, LLC
continues to defend from a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others
generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent litigation settlements
involving Namenda XR entered into between Forest and generic
companies and other conduct by Forest involving Namenda, violated
state antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust
enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers
of Namenda, are consolidated as In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Restasis Antitrust Suit Against Allergan Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Allergan Inc. continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,  In re:
Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2819.

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. generally alleging that
Allergan's petitioning to the U.S. Patent Office and Food and Drug
Administration and other conduct by Allergan involving Restasis
violated federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, certified as a class action filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of Restasis, are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under the MDL Rules as In re: Restasis
(Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2819.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ALABAMA: Court Tosses Dixon's Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL LYNN DIXON v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00524-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge
Myron H. Thompson entered an order:

   1. adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate
      Judge;

   2. denying the motion for class certification;

   3. referring case back to the United States Magistrate Judge
      for further proceedings.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the plaintiff, a state
prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the classification
process utilized by the Alabama Department of Corrections
unlawfully discriminates against male prisoners in terms of
eligibility for minimum-community custody status and work release.


This case is before the court on the recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's motion for class
certification be denied. There are no objections to the
recommendation.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for
incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the
United States.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/384Rk58 at no
extra charge.[CC]

ALABAMA: Taylor Bid for Class Certification Junked
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON TAYLOR v. JEFFERSON
S. DUNN, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner, et al.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron H.
Thompson entered an order:

   1. adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate
      Judge;

   2. denying the motion for class certification;

   3. referring case back to the United States Magistrate Judge
      for further proceedings.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the plaintiff, a state
prisoner, filed this lawsuit contending that the classification
process utilized by the Alabama Department of Corrections
unlawfully discriminates against male prisoners in terms of
eligibility for minimum-community custody status and work release.


This case is before the court on the recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff's motion for class
certification be denied. There are no objections to the
recommendation.

The Alabama Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for
incarceration of convicted felons in the state of Alabama in the
United States.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uO7Znw at no
extra charge.[CC]

ALPINE TOWING: Faces Vargas Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FERNANDO JOSE VARGAS, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. ALPINE TOWING, INC., a Florida
Corporation, and LARRY SARAVIA, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-20760-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' willful violations of overtime wages and retaliation
under the Fair Labor standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt tow
truck driver from on or about August 16, 2016 through on or about
November 28, 2018, and again from on or about January 5, 2020
through February 16, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that he worked an average approximation of 50
hour per week. However, the Defendants allegedly failed to properly
calculate his hourly wage and corresponding overtime rate, which
consequently led to improper payment of his overtime wages at the
applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA. Purportedly,
the Defendants manipulated the time and pay records to make it
appear as though the Plaintiff was paid at the Florida Minimum Wage
rate and the corresponding overtime rate.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated tow truck
drivers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint requesting for
compensatory and liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Alpine Towing, Inc. provides towing services. Larry Saravia had
operational control over the Corporate Defendant and is directly
involved in decisions affecting employees' compensation and their
hours worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

                - and –

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
          Miami, FL 33161
          Tel: (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Boone Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER BOONE and ROXANNE RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-at-00148 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
implemented an illegal policy requiring its non-exempt workers to
undergo a COVID-19 screening each shift without pay. The Defendant
also failed to pay for the time spent undergoing COVID-19
screenings by thousands of other workers nationwide.

Amazon.Com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (310) 928 1277
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               -and-

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  dhodges@hftrialfirm.com


AMERICAN BANKERS: March 9 Response to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLE RASKIN v. AMERICAN
BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, and AMERICAN BANKERS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-25094-UU (S.D.
Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court a seven-day extension of time
through and including March 9, 2021, within which to respond to
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Defendants' response to the Motion is due on Tuesday, March 2,
2021. The Parties are engaged in ongoing mediation efforts with
Magistrate Reid, which began with a settlement conference on
February 17, 2021, and which will continue with a renewed
settlement conference before Magistrate Reid on March 5, 2021.

In connection with focusing their time on mediation efforts in
advance of the renewed settlement conference on March 5, 2021, the
Defendants anticipate requiring additional time to analyze the
Motion, prepare a response, and obtain affidavits as may be
necessary to respond to the Motion.

The Plaintiff filed her Motion well in advance of the March 26,
2021 deadline to do so, and the next applicable deadline is the
discovery cut-off on July 9, 2021. The Defendants have already
served written discovery and do not interpose this motion for
purposes of delay.

American Bankers operates as an insurance company. The Company
provides life, health, and disability insurance services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38c4jSO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Bruce A. Mount, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  bmount@theleachfirm.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Throckmorton, Esq.
          Irma Reboso Solares, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          2 Miami Central
          700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33136
          Telephone: (305) 530-0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
          E-mail: isolares@carltonfields.com
                  cthrockmorton@carltonfields.com

AMERICAN CITY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American City
Business Journals, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American
City Business Journals, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01789-JPC (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2021).

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

American City Business Journals (ACBJ) -- https://acbj.com/ -- is
the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the
United States, with 44 business publications across the country
reaching more than 3.6 million readers each week.[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


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Tracy Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana F. Tracy, David E. Bagenstose, Jason L. Richard and Stacy M.
Moxley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, THE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:21-cv-00541 (D.D.C., March 2, 2021), is brought pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the Plan's
fiduciaries, which include the American National Red Cross, the
Board of Governors of the American National Red Cross and its
members during the Class Period and the Benefit Plan Administration
Committee of the American National Red Cross and its members during
the Class Period ("Committee") for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

The Red Cross established the American Red Cross Savings Plan for
"the purpose of providing a source of retirement funds to
participating employees or their beneficiaries." The Plan has been
hindered in fulfilling its purpose by the fiduciary breaches of the
Committee, the Red Cross and the Board. The Plan is a "defined
contribution" or "individual account" plan within the meaning of
ERISA.

During the Class Period (March 2, 2015 through the date of
judgment) the Plan had at least 894 million dollars in assets under
management. At the end of 2019 and 2018, the Plan had over 1.2
billion dollars and 1 billion dollars, respectively, in assets
under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The Plan also had no less than 22,000 participants
with account balances at any point during the Class Period. The
Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in the
defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans
in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had substantial
bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged
against participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not
try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment
to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan
to ensure it was prudent. In fact, according to data studied by
BrightScope, an industry analyst, the Plan fell in the category of
plans with the highest total plan cost for plans above $500 million
in assets

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping
costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable
fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of
dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims
against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries
(Count Two), says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan.

The Red Cross is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a
principal place in District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Battista, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPER M. BATTISTA
          4224 Jefferson Oaks Circle, Suite E
          Fairfax, VA 22033
          Phone: (202) 360-1016
          Fax: (703) 562-9039
          Email: chris@cmblegalanswers.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 233-4101
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Phone: (610) 890-0200
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com

AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Aon plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2020, that Aon Investments USA, Inc. continues
to defend a classs action related to Lowe Companies, Inc.'s  401(k)
Plan.

Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc, now known as Aon Investments
USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the Administrative Committee
of Lowe's Companies, Inc. were sued on April 27, 2018 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in a
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of participants in the
Lowe's 401(k) Plan.

Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The plaintiffs contend that in 2015 Lowe's imprudently placed the
Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt
Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a
conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the
Plan.

The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $100 million in
investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced.

The plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of
loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute.

Aon believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend itself against these claims.


Aon plc is a global provider of risk management services, insurance
and reinsurance brokerage, and human resource consulting and
outsourcing, delivering distinctive client value via innovative and
effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. The
Company is headquartered in London, England.


APACHE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Apache Corporation ("Apache" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
APA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, and docketed under 21-cv-00722, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Apache common stock from September 7, 2016
through March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"). The action alleges that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Apache common stock during
the Class Period, you have until April 26, 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.

Apache is an independent energy company that explores for,
develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. Apache currently has exploration and production operations
in three geographic areas: the U.S., Egypt, and offshore United
Kingdom in the North Sea, and is developing a purported new find in
offshore Suriname. Historically, the U.S. has represented nearly
60% of the Company's production and 70% of its estimated year-end
proved reserves. At all relevant times, one of the Company's
purported key "core growth areas" was the Permian region in West
Texas and New Mexico.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and financial health, including the viability
and profitability of a purported large oil-and-gas resource play in
the Permian Basin called Alpine High. Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the
amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High;
(ii) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to
safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources
even if they existed in the amounts purported; (iii) these
misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value
of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 23, 2019, before financial markets opened, Apache
announced that it had begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas
production at Alpine High. In response to this news, Apache's stock
price fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 11% over the next four
trading days, from a close of $37.09 per share on April 22, 2019,
to close at $33.06 per share on April 26, 2019.

Then, on October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the
Company. In response to this announcement, Apache's stock price
dropped $1.16 per share, or approximately 5%, from a close of
$23.23 per share on October 24, 2019, to close at $22.07 per share
on October 25, 2019. Apache's stock traded as low as $20.57 per
share on October 25, 2019, an intra-day drop of approximately
11.5%, prompting Bloomberg to issue a story titled "Apache
Executive's Departure Sparks Worst Rout Since 2016."

A few months later, on February 26, 2020, after the close of the
markets, Apache announced that it was completely de-valuing Alpine
High after taking a $3 billion write down on the project. Two weeks
later, on March 12, 2020, Apache announced that it had slashed its
quarterly dividend by 90% (from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per
share) and was significantly reducing planned capital expenditures
for the rest of 2020. On this news, the price of Apache common
stock fell $0.49 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of
$8.25 per share on March 11, 2020, to close at $7.76 per share on
March 12, 2020.

A few days later, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an
article pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged
amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among
large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and
that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its
"financial health isn't great." The article observed that low gas
prices had "forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas
rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's
production growth." The article noted that "Apache also reduced
Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion."

In response to this news and other investment research downgrades,
Apache's stock price fell $3.61 per share, or approximately 45%,
over two trading days, from a close of $8.07 per share, March 13,
2020, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020.

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.

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

APOLLO GLOBAL: ADT Shareholder Litigation Dismissed w/ Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the state
court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement
and dismissing the ADT Inc. state action with prejudice.

Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018,
alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the
January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock. The actions were
consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned, In re
ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and
directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates.

Plaintiffs generally alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information about certain
litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
October 23, 2018, and those motions were fully briefed.

On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and
directors, and AGM Inc.

The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally
alleged that the registration statement was materially misleading
because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT's
financial results, along with certain customer and business
metrics.

On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing
motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On
November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint named the same Apollo-affiliated defendants
as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019. On July 26,
2019, the state court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, except
it reserved judgment on the question whether it has personal
jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo
defendants.

On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions
reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions.
The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their
action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement was submitted to the
state court for approval.

On January 8, 2021, the state court entered a final order and
judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the state action
with prejudice. The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo
defendants.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by Zachary
Blair, is still pending.

On March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by
subsidiaries of AGM Inc. were added as defendants in a class action
filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on December 7, 2017, in the
Superior Court of California.  

Plaintiff alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals,
a party equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo
Funds. Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to
comply with California wage and hour and related laws, and also has
asserted claims based on various provisions of the California labor
code and California’s unfair competition laws.

On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and
former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer
employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis
and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time
from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification
order. After being served with the Complaint in July 2020, a
co-defendant removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on August 24, 2020, and AGM Inc.
filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it on September 23,
2020.

That motion remains pending.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the putative stockholder derivative and class
action suit initiated by Vrajeshkumar Patel, is pending.

On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative
stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc., all of the members of
Talos's board of directors (including two Apollo partners),
Riverstone Holdings, LLC, AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC
in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex
Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020.

The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against
Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of
their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a
controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification and unspecified money damages.

On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. The motion is now fully briefed and oral
argument is scheduled for February 19, 2021.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Orders Remand of Fongers Suit to Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
District Court ordered the Clerk of Court to take the necessary
steps to transfer the putative class action suit initiated by
Benjamin Fongers, back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative
class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against
CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc.  

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its
compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers
would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to
receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not
reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan.

Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to
deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were
earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises
complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as
AGM Inc.'s agent.  

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both
defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales
Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment
Collection Act.

The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of
Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on
January 6, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to
remand.

On January 11, 2021, the District Court ordered the Clerk of Court
to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Firefighters
Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio,
Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL.

On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against Presidio, Inc., all of the
members of Presidio's board of directors (including five directors
who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and
Port Merger Sub, Inc. challenging the then-pending acquisition of
Presidio by BCP.  

The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of
Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
2019-0839-JTL.  

The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the
Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Merger omitted material information, and that BCP aided and abetted
those alleged breaches.

On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a
motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote
and denied that motion.  

On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger,
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as
defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. and LionTree
Advisors, LLC (Presidio's financial advisor in connection with the
Merger).  

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with
the Merger omitted material information, that the Apollo Defendants
were controlling stockholders of Presidio and breached their
alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio's public stockholders, and
that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties.  

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory
relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The
defendants completed briefing on motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 30, 2020.

On January 29, 2021, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion and
accompanying orders granting the Apollo Defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting the motions to dismiss filed by the directors
other than Presidio's CEO, and denying motions to dismiss as to
BCP, Liontree, and Presidio's CEO.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

AQUESTIVE THERA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Aquestive
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) in
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Aquestive securities between December 2, 2019 and September 25,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Aquestive Therapeutics, 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 Aquestive
Therapeutics, Inc., you may, no later than April 30, 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 Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.

On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the
rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for
the management of seizure clusters (the "Libervant NDA").

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:

-- data included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a lower
drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups;
the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval
prospects;

-- as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
the Libervant NDA in its current form; and

-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the review
cycle for the Libervant NDA was complete but the application could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, Aquestive
advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that, in a
study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups
showed a lower drug exposure level than desired. The Company
intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling
to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired
exposure levels."

On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or
34.69%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 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.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST)
securities between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Lewakowski v.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-03751, and is assigned to
Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The Aquestive class action lawsuit
charges Aquestive and certain of its executives with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Aquestive securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Aquestive class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Aquestive class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Aquestive class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Aquestive class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Aquestive class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Aquestive class action
lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel,
Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Aquestive class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than April 30, 2021.

Aquestive is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on identifying,
developing, and commercializing various products to address unmet
medical needs. Aquestive's most advanced proprietary product
candidate is Libervant (diazepam), a buccal soluble film
formulation of diazepam for the treatment of recurrent epileptic
seizures. On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion
of the rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film
for the management of seizure clusters (the "Libervant NDA").

The Aquestive class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data included in the Libervant
NDA submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for
certain weight groups; (ii) the foregoing significantly decreased
the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (iii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its
current form; and (iv) as a result, Aquestive's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the review
cycle for the Libervant NDA was complete but the application could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, Aquestive
advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that, in a
study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups
showed a lower drug exposure level than desired. The Company
intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling
to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired
exposure levels." On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell nearly
35%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.

Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

ARCH INSURANCE: Bid for Class Status Must be Filed by Oct. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE: ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY SKI PASS
INSURANCE LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-MD-02955-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered a scheduling order for initial
phase of MDL 2955 as follows:

   1. Motion to Stay

      The Defendants' motion for a stay of this action remains
      pending before this court. The Plaintiffs timely responded
      to the motion on February 12, 2021, and the Defendants'
      reply is due on February 26, 2021. The court will consider
      the motion to stay thereafter.

   2. Consolidated Master Complaint

      The Plaintiffs' master consolidated class action complaint
      shall be filed on or before February 23, 2021. The
      Defendants' responses to the consolidated complaint shall
      be filed on or before April 23, 2021.

   3. Status Conferences

      It is the Court's intent to hold periodic status
      conferences in this MDL action. This matter is set for
      status conference by telephone on April 1, 2021 at 9:00
      a.m.

   4. Motions to Amend Pleadings or Add Parties

      The parties may amend all pleadings and/or add parties
      without seeking separate leave of Court as long as such
      amendments and/or additions are filed not later than May
      28, 2021.

   5. Discovery Closure Deadline

      All fact discovery pertaining to the makeup of the
      putative class authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure shall be completed on or before October 1, 2021
      (Closure Date).

   6. Motion for Class Certification

      Any motion for class certification shall be filed on or
      before October 20, 2021. Opposition suggestions shall be
      filed on or before November 19, 2021.

   7. Daubert Motions

      All motions to strike expert designations or to preclude
      expert testimony based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) shall be filed
      on or before April 29, 2022.

   8. Dispositive Motions

      Any dispositive motion, except those under Fed. R. Civ. P.
      12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before April 29,
      2022. All motions for summary judgment shall comply with
      Local Rules 7.1 and 56.1.

   9. Motions for Extension of Time

      A motion for extension of time should be filed at least
      three days before the deadline established by the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/38cies6at no extra charge.[CC]

ATHENEX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Western District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATNX) common stock
between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Gupta v. Athenex, Inc., No.
21-cv-00337. The Athenex class action lawsuit charges Athenex and
certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Athenex common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Athenex class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Athenex class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Athenex class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Athenex class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Athenex class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the Athenex class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Athenex class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3,
2021.

Athenex is a global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of
cancer. One of Athenex's main drug candidates is an oral paclitaxel
and encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. On
August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral
paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with
statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase
3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. Athenex also stated
that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application ("NDA") meeting
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and would "be
preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible."

The Athenex class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the data included in the Oral
Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients
in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequelae; (ii) the
uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective
response rate ("ORR") at week 19 conducted by blinded independent
central review ("BICR"); (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read
process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the
BICR; (iv) Athenex's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA
was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with
metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population,
such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial; (v)
as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
Athenex's NDA in its current form; and (vi) consequently, Athenex's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On March 1, 2021, Athenex issued a press release entitled "Athenex
Receives FDA Complete Response Letter for Oral Paclitaxel Plus
Encequidar for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer," which
indicated that the FDA found that the NDA was "not ready for
approval in its present form." According to Athenex, "[i]n the CRL,
the FDA indicated its concern of safety risk to patients in terms
of an increase in neutropenia-related sequelae on the Oral
Paclitaxel arm compared with the IV paclitaxel arm." Athenex
further stated that the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the
uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of [ORR] at
week 19 conducted by [BICR]. The [FDA] stated that the BICR
reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured
bias and influence on the BICR." Athenex also revealed that the FDA
"recommended that Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted
clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast
cancer representative of the population in the U.S. The [FDA]
determined that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve
toxicity, which may involve dose optimization and / or exclusion of
patients deemed to be at higher risk of toxicity, are required to
support potential approval of the NDA." On this news, the price of
Athenex's shares fell approximately 55%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

AVANOS MEDICAL: Bahamas Surgery Center Suit vs KCC Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit entitled, In the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center,
LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No.
2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.), has been dismissed.

In the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH
(C.D. Cal.), filed on October 29, 2014. The plaintiff brought a
putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud
(affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in
connection with the company's marketing and sale of MicroCool
surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $4 million in
compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350
million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3
million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment
interest) and $100 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the
court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and request for
injunctive relief.

The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but
denied the plaintiff's request for restitution. The court also
denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.

On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking,
among other things to have the award of punitive damages reduced.
On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of
the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially
reduced the punitive damages awards.

Under the Amended Judgment, the judgment against the company was
$0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and
$1.3 million in punitive damages.

The judgment against Kimberly-Clark was $3.9 million in
compensatory damages, $2.9 million in pre-judgment interest and
$19.4 million in punitive damages.

On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate
court vacated the judgment against the company and remanded the
case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos
because Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company. The appellate
court also ruled that the district court abused its discretion by
failing to decertify the class as defined and, therefore, vacated
the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded it to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

On August 6, 2020, Bahamas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a
rehearing en banc, and on September 9, 2020, the appellate court
denied their petition.

On October 19, 2020, the trial court ordered that the entire case
against Avanos is dismissed, the judgment against Kimberly-Clark is
vacated, and the class claims are decertified.

On November 11, 2020, the company, Bahamas and Kimberly-Clark
amicably resolved the dispute among them on a confidential basis.
Accordingly, on that same day, the parties filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.

BAKER CREEK: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker Creek Heirloom
Seed Co., LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Baker Creek
Heirloom Seed Co., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01823 (S.D.N.Y., March 2,
2021).

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

Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company -- https://www.rareseeds.com/ --
is one of America's source for pure heirloom seeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed
in New York accusing Beech-Nut Nutrition Company of fraud for the
company's alleged failure to warn customers that its baby food
contained dangerous levels of heavy metals.

The Feb. 18 class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.

In it, plaintiff Mattia Doyle asserted claims on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, contending that Beech-Nut
Nutrition Company sold allegedly harmful baby food containing heavy
metals, including arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead. [GN]


BERRY GLOBAL: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Howard Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORBIN J. HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERRY GLOBAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00038-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., February 24, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful compensation scheme that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid mold
process technician from approximately 2008 until he was
involuntarily terminated on or about May 8, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has created a compensation
scheme through a series of computer software commands which
underpays its employees by rounding their time off both ends of
their work shifts. As a result of this illegal timecard rounding
practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were not paid for all hours they worked and for their overtime
hours at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff seeks for himself and for all other similarly
situated hourly-paid employees all unpaid wages, including overtime
compensation, as well as liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses.

Berry Global, Inc. produces and markets plastic packaging products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Tel: (812) 232-9691
          Fax: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Robi Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 318-9738
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


BIG PICTURE: March 22 Response Time to Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LULA WILLIAMS, et al., v.
BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Defendant Matt Martorello and Plaintiffs Lula Williams,
Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, Marcella P. Singh,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), jointly move for
an enlargement of the deadlines to file Oppositions to the Renewed
Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against Matt Martorello,
Motion to Compel Information Withheld on the Basis of
Attorney-Client Privilege, and Motion to Compel Production of
Documents that Martorello Claims Are Covered by the Work-Product
Doctrine to March 1, 2021 to accommodate competing deadlines in
this and other matters.

Martorello and Plaintiffs further move for an enlargement of the
deadlines to file Replies to the Motions to March 22, 2021.

Big Picture is a personal loan lender.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38e3Z69 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Amy Austin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  amyaustin@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com

The counsel for Matt Martorello, are:

          Jon Hollis, Esq.
          J. Benjamin Rottenborn, Esq.
          Karen M. Stemland, Esq.
          Woods Rogers PLC
          901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1550
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 343-5020
          Facsimile: (804) 343-5021
          E-mail: jhollis@woodsrogers.com
                  brottenborn@woodsrogers.com
                  kstemland@woodsrogers.com

BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Payer Suit Removed to D.S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tuition Payer 100, Viewed Student Female 200,
Viewed Student Male 300, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Bishop of Charleston, a Corporation Sole;
Bishop England High School; Tortfeasors 1-10; The Bishop of the
Diocese of Charleston, in his official capacity; Robert Guglielmone
individually; Case No. 2021-CP-08-00256 was removed from the
Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00613-RMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston --
https://charlestondiocese.org/ -- is an ecclesiastical territory or
diocese of the Roman Catholic Church in the southern United States
and comprises the entire state of South Carolina, with Charleston
as its see city.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna Elizabeth Richter, Esq.
          Lawrence Edward Richter, Jr., Esq.
          RICHTER FIRM LLC
          622 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 849-6000
          Email: anna@richterfirm.com
                 lrichter@richterfirm.com

               - and -

          Brent Souther Halversen, Esq.
          HALVERSEN AND ASSOCIATES
          1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Building G, Suite 200
          Mt Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 284-5790
          Email: brent@halversenlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl Lewis Solomon, Esq.
          SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC
          PO Box 1866
          Columbia, SC 29203
          Phone: (803) 391-3120
          Fax: (803) 509-5033
          Email: carl@solomonlawsc.com

               - and -

          Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
          Stephen M Slotchiver
          SLOTCHIVER AND SLORCHIVER, LLP
          751 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 100
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 577-6531
          Fax: (843) 577-0261
          Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com
                 steve@slotchiverlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carmelo B Sammataro, Esq.
          TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA
          PO Box 1473
          1901 Main Street 17th Floor
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: (803) 227-4253
          Fax: (803) 400-1532
          Email: ssammataro@turnerpadget.com

               - and -

          Megan Rudd, Esq.
          TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA
          PO Box 1509
          Greenville, SC 29602
          Email: mrudd@turnerpadget.com

               - and -

          Richard S Dukes, Jr., Esq.
          TURNER PADGER GRAHAM AND LANEY PA
          PO Box 22129
          40 Calhoun Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, SC 29413-2129
          Phone: (843) 576-2810
          Fax: (843) 577-1646
          Email: rdukes@turnerpadget.com


BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Lopez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RENE LOPEZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other similarly
situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 v. BOAVIDA COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV06244 (Feb. 16, 2021) asserts claims
against the Defendants' failure to provide all rest and meal
periods; failure to separately compensate for rest and recovery
periods and nonproductive time; failure to indemnify for necessary
work-related expenditures; and failure to pay all wages earned for
all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; failure to provide
accurate and complete written wage statements; and failure to
timely pay wages during and upon termination of employment pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable to him, the
State of California, and other similarly situated aggrieved current
and former employees who worked in California as hourly, non-exempt
employees, including resident and community managers and persons in
similar positions, at any time during the period of September 21,
2019 to the present, for civil penalties and other related relief.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties and related relief
through this representative action.

BoaVida Communities owns and operates manufactured home communities
in the western United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BRANDED GROUP: Stacy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Branded Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Elizabeth Stacy, on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Branded Group, Inc.,
Case No. BCV-21-100443 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 1,
2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

Branded Group -- https://www.branded-group.com/ -- offers on-demand
retail and restaurant maintenance, construction management, special
project implementation, and focused consultant services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gorss Motels, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC.,
an Indiana corporation, BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00330-HAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 5, 2021, Judge
Holly A. Brady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

According to the complaint, beginning in the fall of 1988, Gorss
began operating a Super 8 Motel pursuant to a series of franchise
agreements, originally with Super 8 Motels, then with Super 8
Worldwide, Inc. Wyndham Hotels Group, LLC which, in turn, is owned
by Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, eventually acquired Super 8
Worldwide, Inc. Defendant Brigadoon sells commercial fitness
equipment, accessories, and related items to the hospitality
industry. Brigadoon, as a party to a separate agreement with
Wyndham, became a Wyndham approved supplier to provide its
commercial fitness equipment to Wyndham affiliates, including
Gorss. To this end, on April 17, 2013, Brigadoon, through its fax
broadcaster, sent a facsimile transmission to Gorss' subscribed fax
line advertising its products. Gorss filed this federal lawsuit
seeking redress for the offense under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order dated November 4,
2019, denying its motion to reconsider denial of class
certification and denying amended motion for class certification;
Opinion and Order dated May 20, 2019, denying its motion for class
certification; Opinion and Order dated January 26, 2021, denying
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and granting the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and Opinion and Order
dated May 21, 2020, granting Defendants' motion for leave to file
amended answer and affirmative defenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Brigadoon
Fitness Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1358, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, February 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by March 12, 2021;

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Gorss Motels, Inc.
March 4, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 7, 2021 for Gorss
Motels, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Appellees BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., an Indiana
corporation, and BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation,
are represented by:

          D. Randall Brown, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          888 S. Harrison Street
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-3119
          Telephone: (219) 425-4674
          E-mail: randy.brown@btlaw.com

BROWNING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Browning. The case is
styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Browning, Case No. 1:21-cv-01814 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2021).

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

Browning Arms Company -- https://www.browning.com/ -- is an
American marketer of firearms and fishing gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


BUFFETS LLC: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO SARMENTO, et al.,
v. BUFFETS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07922-WHA (N.D. Calif.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered a case management order as
follows:

   1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by
      February 26, 2021, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c),
      including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 22 26(a)
      (1)(A)(iii);

   2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be
      sought by April 29, 2021.

   3. The motion for class certification must be filed by
      September 30, 2021, to be heard on a 49-day track.

   4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be December
      17, 2021.

   5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and
      disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as
      to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof.

Buffets LLC is the owner of Hometown Buffet, Fire Mountain, and
several other restaurant chains.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rdkU06 at no extra charge.[CC]

C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of
Herself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. C&D
Security Management, Inc. d/b/a/ Allied Universal Security
Services, and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied
Universal Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order granting
Allied's motion and formally extending and re-setting Allied's
deadline to file a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion by
two weeks, up to and including March 12, 2021.

Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and
services; janitorial services; and staffing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3bc1iDNat no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian L. Saunders, Esq.
          Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 955-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
          E-mail: bsaunders@huntonak.com
                  rquackenboss@huntonak.com

C&D SECURITY: March 12 Extension of Class Cert. Response Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DAVIS, on behalf of
Herself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. C&D
Security Management, Inc. d/b/a/ Allied Universal Security
Services, and Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied
Universal Security Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01758-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court for an order granting its motion
and formally extending and re-setting its deadline to file a
response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion by two weeks, up to
and including March 12, 2021.

Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and
services; janitorial services; and staffing.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3sQMP6bat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian L. Saunders, Esq.
          Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 955-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
          E-mail: bsaunders@huntonak.com
                  rquackenboss@huntonak.com

CARERITE CENTERS: McDonald Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MCDONALD, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. CARERITE
CENTERS, LLC, A New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No.
3:21-cv-00126 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 16, 2021) is a class action lawsuit
brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages
owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated licensed practical
nurses and certified nursing assistants as a class.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly-paid employees for all hours worked over 40 per week within
weekly pay periods at one and one-half their regular hourly rate of
pay, as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff Michelle McDonald was employed by Defendant as an
hourly-paid licensed practical nurse.

CareRite is a hospital and health care company that provides
rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Leszanczuk Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sylvia Leszanczuk filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington
Mortgage Services, Case No. 1:19-cv-03038, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Plaintiff Sylvia Leszanczuk brings suit on behalf of two putative
classes against Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC,
asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fairness Act. Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part. Specifically, the Court denied Defendant's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted the
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 25, 2020.
The dismissal of the amended complaint was with prejudice and a
final judgment was entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
58.

Ms. Leszanczuk seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February
3, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington
Mortgage Services, Case No. 21-1367, in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, March 1, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by March 15, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before April 12, 2021 for
Sylvia Leszanczuk.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SYLVIA LESZANCZUK, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is
represented by:

          Patrick J. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

Defendant-Appellee CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Fredrick S. Levin, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 424-3900

CBOE GLOBAL: Appeal in VIX-Related Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties are
currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit on the appeal in
the class action suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index
methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a
putative class action alleging various claims against the Company
and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On

August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response
on October 8, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the federal district court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's second
motion to dismiss and all counts against the Company were dismissed
with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal. On May
19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the April 21,
2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both
orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss entered on May 29,
2019 and January 27, 2020. On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their
opening brief with the 7th Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company
filed its opposition brief with the 7th Circuit, on September 7,
2020, CME Group Inc., Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National
Futures Association filed an amici curiae brief in support of the
Company on the Bad Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on
October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th
Circuit.

Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020 and the
parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit.

Cboe said, "The Company currently believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The
Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result
from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the securities class action suit against Bats Global
Markets, Inc. now known as CBOE Bats, LLC and Direct Edge Holdings
LLC.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange or a
U.S.-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result of
the alleged misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a
variety of business practices associated with, among other things,
what is commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower
Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion
and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing the complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.
On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17,
2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July
16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019.


The discovery period in the matter commenced and is scheduled to
continue through at least the first half of 2021.

Cboe said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the
Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result
from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CERTIFIED MULTIMEDIA: Staff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josias Ramos, Joseph Vale, Becca Earhart, and those employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Certified MultiMedia Solutions,
LLC and Mark Peterson, individually Defendants, Case No.
CACE-21-002669, (Fla. Cir., February 8, 2021) seeks compensatory
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Certified MultiMedia Solutions operated a multi-media installations
and servicing business where Plaintiffs are hourly-paid workers who
performed services and worked in excess of the maximum hours bus
were denied overtime pay at the rate of time and one-half for all
of the hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos A. Mesa, Esq.
      MESA LITIGATION & LEGAL CONSULTING, P.A.
      4960 SW 72 Avenue, Suite 206
      Miami, FL 33155
      Tel: (305) 569-3005
      Email: cmesa@mesafloridalawyer.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Paradowski Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN PARADOWSKI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case No.
6:18-cv-01228-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying the following Classes:

      -- Free-Run Poultry Class

         "All persons who are citizens of the State of New York
         who purchased Acana Heritage Free-Run Poultry
         manufactured at CPF's DogStar kitchen in Kentucky from
         June 1, 2016, to the present;" and

      -- Meadowland Class

         "All persons who are citizens of the State of New York
         who purchased Acana Regionals Meadowland manufactured
         at CPF's DogStar kitchen in Kentucky from June 1, 2016,
         to the present;"

         Excluded from the Classes are persons or entities who
         purchased these foods for business use or resale,
         governmental entities, CPF and its affiliates,
         subsidiaries, employees, current and former officers,
         director, agents, representatives, and members of this
         Court and its staff;

   2. appointing her as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; Gustafson
      Gluek, PLLC; Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; Robbins Arroyo
      LLP; and Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as Co-Lead Class
      Counsel.

Champion Petfoods retails pet food products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
Feb. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/2Ok8yEOat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Michelle Perkovic, Esq.
          Mark T. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com
                  mp@wexlerwallace.com
                  mjt@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

CHESAPEAKE DETENTION: Catchings Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEDRIC CATCHINGS et al.,
Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. CALVIN WILSON, In his official capacity as Warden,
Chesapeake Detention Facility Department of Corrections, et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00428-TSE (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order

   1. certifying the Classes and Subclass:

      -- Pretrial Class defined as "all people detained in the
         Chesapeake Detention Facility who are not detained
         pursuant to a judgment of conviction;"

      -- Medically Vulnerable Subclass defined as "all Pretrial
         Class members whose medical condition renders them
         especially vulnerable to the coronavirus as determined
         by guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease
         Control and Prevention;" and

      -- Post-Conviction Class is defined as "all people
         detained in the Chesapeake Detention Facility who are
         detained pursuant to a judgment of conviction;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Sedric Catchings, Charles
      Couser, Collin Davis, Allen Lamin, Sirron Little, Taiwo
      Moultrie, and Joseph Speed to represent the Pretrial
      Class;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs Sedric Catchings, Collin Davis,
      Sirron Little, Taiwo Moultrie, and Joseph Speed to
      represent the Medically Vulnerable Subclass;

   4. appointing Plaintiff Howard Thomas to represent the Post-
      Conviction Class; and

   5. appointing their counsel as class counsel under Rule 23 of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This federal class action seeks to require the Defendants to
implement procedures that keep Plaintiffs reasonably safe from
contracting communicable disease while in custody and provide
reasonable medical care for those who do contract the virus.

The Plaintiffs' suit for declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Eighth and Fifth / Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the
Medically Vulnerable Subclass's petition for habeas corpus, arise
from the Defendants' failure to protect them from the severe risk
of death or serious physical harm and their deliberate indifference
to those threats to their health and safety.

According to the complaint, the Defendants Wilson and Green, in
their official capacities in operating and overseeing the
Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF), have failed to take reasonable
measures to protect from COVID-19 infection the residents of CDF in
their custody and under their control. There is already an outbreak
of COVID-19 at CDF, with one-third of residents and staff testing
positive in a month's time. Moreover, CDF's inadequate care for
those with symptoms or confirmed cases increases the likelihood
that those infected will suffer serious illness, permanent physical
damage, and death. Every single person at CDF faces a risk of death
or serious harm as a result.

The Chesapeake Detention Facility, previously the Maryland
Correctional Adjustment Center, is a maximum level II prison
operated by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services in Baltimore.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PvzG4j
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec W. Farr, Esq.
          Daniel C. Schwartz, Esq.
          Adam L. Shaw, Esq.
          Joscelyn T. Solomon, Esq.
          Brett R. Orren, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1155 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 508-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 508-6200
          E-mail: awfarr@bclplaw.com
                  dcschwartz@bclplaw.com
                  adam.shaw@bclplaw.com
                  joscelyn.solomon@bclplaw.com
                  brett.orren@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Tianna Mays, Esq.
          Jon Greenbaum, Esq.
          Arthur Ago, Esq.
          John Fowler, Esq.
          Rochelle F. Swartz, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          UNDER LAW
          1500 K Street NW Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-662-8600
          Facsimile: 202-783-0857
          E-mail: tmays@lawyerscommittee.org
                  jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
                  aago@lawyerscommittee.org
                  jfowler@lawyerscommittee.org
                  rswartz@lawyerscommittee.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian E. Frosh, Esq.
          MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL
          200 St. Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          E-mail: civil_service@oag.state.md.us

CHEVRON CORP: Faces San Francisco Herring Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chevron Corp. The
case is captioned as SAN FRANCISCO HERRING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v.
CHEVRON CORP. ET AL., Case No. CIVMSC21-00317 (Cal. Super., Contra
Costa Cty., Feb. 16, 2021).

The case type states toxic tort/environmental. A case management
conference will be held on July 6, 2021.

Chevron is an American multinational energy corporation. One of the
successor companies of Standard Oil, it is headquartered in San
Ramon, California, and active in more than 180 countries.[BN]

Plaintiffs John Mellor, Christopher Cameron, and San Francisco
Herring Association are:

          Stuart Gross, Esq.
          Pier 9
          The Embarcadero no. 100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 671-4628

CHEWY.COM: Faces Suit Over Misleading Dog Food Products Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that a trial attorney
on Feb. 22 pointed to a multimillion-dollar federal class action
complaint against Chewy.com, an American online retailer of pet
foods and its subsidiary, as an example of a rising trend in the
legal industry.

More than 100 members in the proposed class would seek upward of $5
million after being misled by packaging and advertising in their
purchase of these premium-priced dog food products. [GN]



CHICAGO, IL: Taylor Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Trudy Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Trudy Taylor v. Board of Education of the
City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07874, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Board breached the contract
concerning her appointment as principal of Owens Academy by
terminating the contract prior to the end of the agreed-upon
four-year term. The Board asserts that it terminated her because
the school closed, it permanently merged into another school,
and/or Taylor resigned -- all reasons that, under the contract,
could serve as the basis for terminating Taylor prior to the end of
the contract's term.

Ms. Taylor seeks a review of the Court's Order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Trudy Taylor v. Board of
Education of the City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 21-1359, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, February 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Trudy Taylor on
March 5, 2021;

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by March 12, 2021;

   -- Fee or IFP forms are due on March 12, 2021 for Appellant
Trudy Taylor.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TRUDY TAYLOR, and similarly or substantially
similarly situated member principals, of Halcrest, Illinois,
appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and
KAREN SAFFOLD are represented by:

          Elizabeth K. Barton, Esq.
          CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION
          One N. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-4331
          Telephone: (773) 553-5935

CLARK & GENTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Avrahami Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Celia Clark and Clark & Gentry PLLC filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Benyamin Avrahami,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. Celia Clark, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04631-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants creating and
operating a "microcaptive insurance company." A microcaptive
insurance company is created when the insurer and insured are
related by ownership.  Under Section 831 of the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC"), in a legal microcaptive insurance arrangement, the
insurance premiums paid by the insured subsidiaries are tax
deductible by both the insurer and the insured, resulting in
significant tax savings.

The Avrahami Plaintiffs own several jewelry stores and other
properties in Arizona through their corporation American Findings.
The Insured Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of American Findings. In
2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs consulted with their accounting firm,
the McEntee Defendants, about ways to reduce their businesses' tax
burdens. The McEntee Defendants recommended the Hiller Defendants
and the Clark Defendants to help the Avrahami Plaintiffs save
significantly on their taxes. The Avrahami Plaintiffs ultimately
retained the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help
form a microcaptive insurance company.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants fraudulently created a
scheme to develop, promote, sell, and implement faulty captive
insurance products by giving improper legal, tax, and investment
advice to individuals and businesses. They allege that the
fraudulent scheme caused damages by exacerbating their tax burdens.
The Defendants have filed a series of motions to dismiss, which are
fully briefed and ready for review.

The Defendants seek an interlocutory appeal following the Court's
Order dated January 26, 2021, stating that their objections to
Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories are overruled, and Court's
Order dated February 12, 2021 on motion for miscellaneous relief.

The appellate case is captioned as Benyamin Avrahami, et al. v.
Celia Clark, et al., Case No. 21-15337, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 25, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Celia Clark and Clark & Gentry PLLC Mediation
Questionnaire wer due on March 4, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 25, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on April 26, 2021;

   -- Appellants Celia Clark and Clark & Gentry PLLC opening brief
is due on June 3, 2021;

   -- Appellees Benyamin Avrahami, Orna Avrahami, BYS Company ACC,
Chandler One LLC, Feedback Insurance Company Limited, Junction
Development LLC, O&E Corporation, White Knight Investment ACC and
White Mountain Equities LLC answering brief is due on July 6, 2021;
and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees BENYAMIN AVRAHAMI, ORNA AVRAHAMI, FEEDBACK
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BYS COMPANY ACC, CHANDLER ONE LLC,
JUNCTION DEVELOPMENT LLC, O&E CORPORATION, WHITE MOUNTAIN EQUITIES
LLC, and WHITE KNIGHT INVESTMENT ACC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          William Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
          David R. Deary, Esq.
          Donna Lee, Esq.
          John W. McKenzie, III, Esq.
          Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
          Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.
          LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 572-1700
          E-mail: ralphc@lfdslaw.com
                  davidd@lfdslaw.com
                  donnal@lfdslaw.com
                  johnm@lfdslaw.com   
                  tylers@lfdslaw.com
                  wilsonw@lfdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants CELIA CLARK and CLARK & GENTRY PLLC are
represented by:

          Paul J. McGoldrick, Esq.
          Scott Zerlaut, Esq.
          SHORALL MCGOLDRICK BRINKMANN
          1232 East Missouri Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 230-5400
          E-mail: paulmcgoldrick@smbattorneys.com  
                  scottzerlaut@smbattorneys.com

CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of those who acquired
Clover Health Investments, Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CLOV) securities from October 6, 2020 through February 3,
2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 6, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are
driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to
disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and began to trade under the symbol
CLOV on NASDAQ. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a
report stating that prior to the merger, Clover had been under
active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues
ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed
third-party deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active
investigation by the DOJ. On this news, the price of Clover's
shares fell $1.72 per share, or approximately 12.3%, to close at
$12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a one-day loss
in market capitalization of approximately $700 million.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]


CLOVER HEALTH: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discusses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corey I. Rogoff, Esq. -- crogoff@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Clover
Health is an insurance company focusing on Medicare Advantage that
uses its proprietary software platform to offer PPO and HMO plans
to eligible consumers.  It fits the mold for many would-be SPAC
acquisitions: a technology company with its own platform (known as
the Clover Assistant) servicing a growing industry (health care).
Chamath Palihapitiya must have thought so as well, as Clover Health
announced its plans to merge with his SPAC -- Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH") -- on October 6, 2020.  The
business combination was completed three months later, on January
7, 2021.

However, less than one month later, a sole plaintiff filed a
purported federal securities class action against Clover Health
Investments, SCH, and relevant officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  In his
complaint, the plaintiff highlighted an analyst report alleging
Clover Health and Mr. Palihapitiya "misled investors about critical
aspects of Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC
go-public transaction" and that Clover Health was under active
investigation by the Department of Justice for allegedly improper
business practices.  Based on these allegations, the complaint
contends Clover Health failed to disclose material information,
causing its public statements to be materially false and
misleading.

Clover Health has not yet filed its response, and the Court has not
made any statements about class certification. [GN]


COLLECTORS UNIVERSE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collectors Universe,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Collectors Universe, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Collectors Universe Inc. -- https://www.collectorsuniverse.com/ --
is an American company formed in 1986, now based in Santa Ana,
California, which provides third-party authentication and grading
services to collectors, retail buyers and sellers of
collectibles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


CONTAINER STORE: Neal Sues for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------
Samantha Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Case No. CACE-21-004409
(Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 2, 2021), is
brought under the Florida Security of Communications Act, arising
from the Defendant's unlawful interception of electronic
communications.

Specifically, this case stems from the Defendant's use of tracking,
recording, and/or "session replay" software to intercept the
Plaintiff's 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 viewed on the website.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant intercepted the electronic
communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in
violation of Plaintiff's privacy rights under the FSCA. Such
clandestine monitoring and recording of an individual's electronic
communications has long been held a violation of the FSCA. The
Defendant has intercepted the electronic communications involving
Plaintiff and the Class members' visits to its website, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy and/or exposure
of their private information. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful
interceptions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida
who visited the Defendant's website three times.

The Defendant owns and operates the following website:
www.containerstore.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-400-4713
          Email: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com


COPART INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Copart, Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Copart, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01808
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Copart, Inc. or simply Copart -- https://www.copart.com/ -- is a
global provider of online vehicle auction and remarketing services
to automotive resellers such as insurance, rental car, fleet and
finance companies in 11 countries: the US, Canada, the UK, Germany,
Ireland, Brazil, Spain, Dubai, Bahrain, Oman and Finland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


CORE & MAIN: Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Set for July 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISHMAEL PEREZ,
individually. and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. CORE & MAIN LP, a Florida limited
partnership: and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01821-MCS-KK (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order that the deadlines and hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification are continued as follows:

   Deadline to file Motion for Class       July 2, 2021
   Certification:

   Deadline to file Opposition             July 23, 2021
   to Motion:

   Deadline to file Reply                  August 6, 2021
   In Support of Motion:

   Hearing on Motion for                   August 23, 2021
   Class Certification:

Core & Main, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a U.S.
distributor of water, sewer and fire protection products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MFYOEl at no extra charge.[CC]

CORELLE BRANDS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CORELLE BRANDS, LLC.
The case is styled as Caroline Garcia, Michael Sporn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORELLE BRANDS,
LLC D/B/A INSTANT BRANDS, Case No. CGC21589808 (Cal. Super. Ct. San
Francisco Cty., March 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Corelle Brands, LLC -- https://corporate.instantbrands.com/ -- is
an American kitchenware products maker and distributor based in
Rosemont, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling reports that on February 16, 2021, Judge Brian
M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed a putative securities class action
against a medical and wellness cannabis operator and certain of its
officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Curaleaf
Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 19-cv-04486 (E.D.N.Y.
2021). Plaintiffs alleged the Company made false and misleading
statements regarding the benefits and legality of its cannabinol
("CBD") products. The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that
the Company disclosed what plaintiffs claimed was not disclosed and
that plaintiffs thus failed to plead falsity or, with respect to
certain alleged misstatements, loss causation.

The Company is a U.S. cannabis operator listed on the Canadian
Stock Exchange. In November 2018, the Company announced the launch
of "a line of premium hemp-based CBD products" to support "overall
wellness." It marketed the products as treatments for a variety of
health and medical conditions. In the initial announcement, as well
as subsequent press releases, the Company stated that its products
were of "highest standard for safety [and] effectiveness." On July
22, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a letter
warning the Company that several of its CBD products were
unapproved and/or misbranded drugs sold in violation of federal
law. Plaintiffs claimed the Company failed to warn investors of the
lack of FDA approval and that potential regulatory issues would
stymie Company sales. Plaintiffs also claimed the Company
misleadingly touted the health benefits of its CBD products.

Several claims were dismissed for failure to plead falsity based on
disclosures and warnings contained in a listing statement that the
Company filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities
in October 2018. For example, the Court dismissed plaintiffs'
claims that the Company failed to fully disclose the illegality of
the sale of CBD products under federal law due to lack of FDA
approval. Agreeing with defendants, the Court held that "the
Company publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the very information
that plaintiffs contend it concealed" -- namely, that its CBD
products were not approved by the FDA and that marketing them as
having health benefits may violate federal law. The Court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that the Company did not disclose that the
products were "illegal" but instead only disclosed that the
products could be "in violation" of federal law, holding that there
is "no requirement that a Company disclose its risk in any magic
words preferred by plaintiffs." The Court also rejected plaintiffs'
claim that the warnings were misleading because they only disclosed
the "potential[]" for regulatory action" when such action was,
according to plaintiffs, a certainty, concluding that "[d]escribing
this risk in terms of potentiality rather than certainty – when
certainty of enforcement could not be known anyway - does not
violate securities law."

The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the Company
mispresented its CBD products as being "safe" and "effective" for
failure to allege loss causation. Plaintiffs claimed that the FDA
letter "revealed" the "truth" that the Company's products did not
have the touted health benefits. However, the Court held that the
FDA letter offered no opinion regarding the truth or falsity of the
Company's statements, but instead admonished the Company for making
such statements without FDA approval. As such, the letter was
simply a materialization of disclosed risks with respect to FDA
approval and not a corrective disclosure as to the Company's prior
statements. [GN]


DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds all investors
that a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against Decision Diagnostics Corp. ("Decision Diagnostics" or "the
Company") (OTCBB: DECN) on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's securities between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Decision Diagnostics Corp.
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 Decision Diagnostics
Corp., you may, no later than March 16, 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 Decision Diagnostics Corp.

According to the filed Complaint, the Company made false and
misleading statements to the market. Decision Diagnostics failed to
develop a viable COVID-19 test in any form, let alone a test that
could detect the virus in less than one minute. The Company was not
capable of meeting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's)
EUA testing requirements for its purported COVID-19 test. Despite
this inability to meet FDA requirements, the Company touted an
unrealistic time to market for its tests. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class.

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.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


DIRECTV LLC: Federal Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted summary judgment on February 12 to DirecTV,
LLC (DirecTV), holding it was not liable under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for unsolicited telemarketing calls
placed by a third-party vendor because DirecTV had clearly
instructed the vendor not to make any cold calls.

The class action, Cordoba et al. v. DirecTV, alleged that DirecTV
had violated the TCPA by authorizing a call center vendor, Telecel
Marketing Solutions, LLC (Telecel), to place telemarketing calls to
solicit subscriptions on DirecTV's behalf without obtaining the
called party's consent. Specifically, Cordoba argued that Telecel
had not kept an internal do-not-call list or respected do-not-call
requests, placing unconsented-to telemarketing calls to nearly
17,000 individuals, and claimed that DirecTV knew of and authorized
those calls. Telecel, an independent contractor, received
commissions for each customer that activated service with DirecTV.

Judge Cohen of the Northern District of Georgia found that, far
from authorizing the calls, DirecTV's contracts with Telecel
"expressly prohibited" the making of unsolicited calls to potential
customers who had not contacted Telecel first, even when the
evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
The agreement went beyond a "vague instruction . . . to obey all
applicable laws," stating "unambiguously" that telemarketing calls
"to residential telephone lines or cellular phones are not
permitted." DirecTV also required Telecel to comply with its
telemarketing policy, which forbade all such calls "unless they are
returning a direct inquiry from a customer and such inquiry can be
substantiated." And these prohibitions were prominently placed on
the cover letter for the telemarketing policy with a bold and
underlined "Reminder," not buried in legal jargon. As a result, the
court held DirecTV could not be found to have given express consent
for the calls to Telecel.

Additionally, there was no evidence DirecTV knew of these calls,
aside from a single call that resulted in a warning from DirecTV to
Telecel. However, DirecTV, in corresponding with Cordoba about
calls from third-party vendors, had made sure Cordoba knew that
removal from DirecTV's internal do-not-call list would not "impact
activities of independent retailers, who may promote DirecTV
services or products." Therefore, Telecel had no implied or
apparent authority to place these calls.

Since DirecTV had clearly not ratified Telecel's cold calls, the
court granted DirecTV's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the
class and individual TCPA claims. Following this decision, the only
unresolved matter is a claim by another plaintiff under the
Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. That claim,
alleging that DirecTV disclosed protected subscriber information,
will be moved to arbitration as ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in
February 2020.

DirecTV's success contrasts markedly with the outcome of Dish
Network's (Dish) TCPA litigation in 2017. Dish faced federal
allegations that it had placed tens of millions of telemarketing
sales calls to individuals on national and internal do-not-call
lists through third-party vendors. The court found Dish liable,
assessing a record-setting $280 million in civil penalties under
the TCPA and Telemarketing Sales Rule, due in part to Dish's
failure to provide clear instructions to and oversight of its
vendors. The Fourth Circuit later upheld a $61 million class action
verdict against Dish Network in a separate TCPA case on similar
grounds. [GN]

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in B&R Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
compel arbitration in B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., is pending.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v.
Visa, Inc. et al.) alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to shift
fraud liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology.

The plaintiffs assert joint and several liability among the
defendants and seek unspecified damages, including treble damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the
Court entered an order transferring the entire action to a federal
court in New York that is presiding over certain related claims
that are pending in the actions consolidated as MDL 1720.

On August 28, 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a Class. The defendants appealed the ruling on September
11, 2020.

The Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 30,
2020.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

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

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and
electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit
cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings
products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts.
Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine
networks. The company is based in Riverwoods, Illinois.

DROPBOX INC: Settlement Reached in California IPO Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the
consolidated IPO related class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, reached a settlement
in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court.

The Company is currently involved in four putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws that
were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13,
2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County, against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO), and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated
entities.

On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the
Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The six lawsuits each made the same or similar allegations of
violations of federal securities laws, for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material
information from, the Company's initial public offering (IPO)
registration statement. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

On March 2, 2020, the Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint. On April 16, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the federal consolidated class action complaint.


On October 21, 2020, the court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Plaintiffs’ complaint,
setting a deadline of January 6, 2021 for the Federal Plaintiffs to
file any amended complaint.

The federal court extended this deadline to February 22, 2021 to
provide time for the parties to explore resolving the case.

On February 11, 2021, the parties attended mediation and reached a
settlement in principle for an immaterial amount subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final approval by the court.

On May 11, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated state court case based on the exclusive federal
forum provisions contained in our amended and restated bylaws. On
December 4, 2020, the state court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated state court case. On
December 15, 2020, the State Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
this order.

Dropbox said, "We believe the appeal and claims are without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend against them."

Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software.
The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share
files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves
customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.

E.L.F. COSMETICS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.L.F Cosmetics, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc., Case
No. 2:21-cv-01116 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

e.l.f. Cosmetics -- https://www.elfcosmetics.com/ -- is an
international cosmetics brand based in Oakland, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


EAN SERVICES: Swiggum FSCA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATHRYN SWIGGUM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
21-000647-CI, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the
Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 2,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:21-cv-00493-TPB-CPT to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by using session replay
software on its Website.

EAN Services, LLC is an automobile services company located in St.
Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         J. Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
         Theodore B. Randles, Esq.
         VENABLE LLP
         600 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 344-4000
         Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
         E-mail: jbaldridge@venable.com
                 tbrandles@venable.com

EAN SERVICES: Swiggum Says Web Transactions Illegally Monitored
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Swiggum, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EAN Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-000647-CI (Fla. Cir., February 8, 2021),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Florida Security of Communications
Act.

Defendant owns and operates www.enterprise.com. Swiggum alleges
that EAN Services intercepted, tracked and records her electronic
communications through the site at issue without her knowledge or
prior consent including how they interact with the website, their
mouse movements and clicks, information inputted into the website,
and/or pages and content viewed on the website causing invasion of
her privacy and/or exposure of her private information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 479-2299
      Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

            - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Feb. 23 disclosed 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 Ebix,
Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until April 23, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 22, 2021, 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
there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift
card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that
there was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over
the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the
Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over
disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Ebix securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, 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, P.C.

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.

Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


EBIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities
between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Ebix investors have until April 23, 2021 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Ebix investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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 there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in
the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Ebix 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


EBIX INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ebix, Inc.
("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX). The class action is on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Ebix between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than April 23, 2021.

The Ebix class action lawsuit charges Ebix and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities during
the Class Period.

Ebix Ishares fell 39.89% on February 22, 2021, following the
disclosure that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"),
resigned. RMS stated in a letter that it was resigning over
concerns with Ebix's gift card business in India.

The complaint 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: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in
the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Ebix class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ebix class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Ebix class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more
about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com)
at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

                      About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


EBIX INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EBIX) to determine whether the Company engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, EBIX SECURITIES
BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AND FEBRUARY 19, 2021 (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.

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Ebix
shareholders in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the
Ebix 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.

The Ebix Defendants, allegedly, failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the
business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in
Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of
2020; (2) there was a material weakness in the Company's internal
controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; (3)
the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign
over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Ebix Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On February 19, 2021, Ebix announced that "[b]y letter dated
February 15, 2021, RSM US LLP ('RSM') notified the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors (the 'Audit Committee') of Ebix, Inc. . .
. of its resignation as the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm."

According to Ebix, ". . . RSM told the Chairman of the Company's
Audit Committee during a telephone call that RSM was resigning as
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm,
effective immediately. RSM then advised the Chairman on the call
that it was resigning as a result of being unable, despite repeated
inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that
would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant
unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020,
including whether such transactions have been properly accounted
for and disclosed in the financial statements subject to the
Audit." Ebix also reported that "RSM informed the Chairman that the
unusual transactions concerned the Company's gift card business in
India."

On this news, Ebix shares fell by as much as 27% during after-hours
trading on February 19, 2021, thereby injuring Ebix investors. Ebix
investors were further harmed when Ebix stock fell approximately
40% on February 22, 2021.

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]


EHANG HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Feb. 23
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against EHang
Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) and
certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased EHang shares between December 12, 2019 and
February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have
suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for
additional information at (844) 818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

EHang purports to be an autonomous aerial vehicle ("AAV")
technology platform company engaged in pioneering the future of
transportation and related commercial solutions.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
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 AAV 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; and (iv) the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees.

On February 16, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report entitled
"EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn," which
alleged that the Company promoted its stock based on fabricated
revenues. Specifically, the report claimed that much of the
Company's revenue was based on sham sales made by customers who
were primarily interested in artificially "pumping" EHang's stock
price rather than becoming genuine purchasers of EHang's products.
The report further detailed that EHang had a collection rate of 20%
on its reported sales, and that the company holding most of EHang's
Chinese assets had much of its equity frozen by a Chinese court due
to questionable transactions.

On this news, the price of EHang American Depository Shares ("ADS"
or "shares") price fell 62% on February 16, down from its previous
close price of $124.09 to a close price of $46.30.

What You Can Do

If you purchased EHang securities between December 12, 2019 and
February 16, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is April 19, 2021.

             About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

CONTACT:

Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA SANTANA, Plaintiff v. EKKO'S AUTOMOTIVE LLC and
YANNIS/DIMITRI ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00574
(S.D. Tex., February 23, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees against the
Defendants for their alleged illegal pattern or practice that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked at an automotive shop that was initially owned
by Yanni/Dimitri Enterprises, LLC, and later sold to Ekko's
Automotive, LLC in August 2019. She worked with the Defendants as
the front office clerk from approximately March 2020 until December
2020.

The Plaintiff claims that while employed by the Defendants, she
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. She recorded her
time using the Defendants' time keeping system. However, the
Defendant either did not compensate her, or paid her less than her
hourly rate for the overtime hours she worked. Allegedly, the wages
she received from the Defendant were not reported to any government
and no taxes were withheld of paid by Defendants because the
payments were made in cash.

The complaint further asserts that the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees have suffered damages as a direct
result of the Defendant's illegal actions. Thus, the Plaintiff
brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees, and other further
relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

The Corporate Defendants provides automotive services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                  jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Dynamic Difficulty' Class-Action Suit Gets Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Calvin at PCGamesInsider reports that EA has managed to
convince the lawyers representing a class-action case that it does
not use its "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment" (DDA) technology to
change how hard its games are.

In a blog post - as spotted by GI.biz - the publishing giant said
that the case has been dismissed after it provided the plaintiff's
legal representation with "detailed technical information" to
confirm that DDA isn't used to impact difficulty in the Ultimate
Team modes for FIFA, Madden or NHL. The case was voluntarily
dismissed with the US District Court for the Northern District of
California on February 11th.

"While EA does own a patent for DDA technology, that technology
never was in FIFA, Madden or NHL, and never will be," the publisher
wrote.

"We would not use DDA technology to give players an advantage or
disadvantage in online multiplayer modes in any of our games and we
absolutely do not have it in FIFA, Madden or NHL."

Worth the loot?

The case was initially filed against EA in November of last year,
with EA saying that its claims were "baseless and misrepresent our
games."

This is just one class-action lawsuit that EA is facing. The firm
is facing another in the Northern District of California over FIFA
Ultimate Team loot boxes, while there's a Canadian class-action
case over EA's monetisation model.

This story first appeared on PCGamesInsider.biz [GN]

ELEMENT MATERIALS:  Appeals Remand of Flores Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach, LLC filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Roger
Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00275-DMG-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the Superior Court California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 12, 2021.

The case arises from alleged labor violations and is assigned to
Judge Dolly M. Gee.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February
19, 2021, granting Flores' motion to remand and remanding this case
to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 18STCV10074, for
lack of jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Roger Flores v. Element
Materials Technology Huntington Beach, LLC, Case No. 21-80012, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 2,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ROGER FLORES, individually and on behalf of
allothers similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com  

Defendant-Petitioner ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH,
LLC is represented by:

          Timothy J. Long, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1201 K Street, Suite 1100
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 329-7919
          E-mail: longt@gtlaw.com

ENCORE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 23
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Encore Capital Group (NASDAQ: ECPG) resulting
from allegations that Encore may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Encore 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-1944.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 8, 2020, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB") filed a complaint alleging that Encore
and its subsidiaries violated a consent order "by suing consumers
without possessing required documentation, using law firms and an
internal legal department to engage in collection efforts without
providing required disclosures, and failing to provide consumers
with required loan documentation after consumers requested it." On
this news, shares of Encore fell $3.59 per share, or nearly 10%, to
close at $42.29 on September 9, 2020, 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]


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Cline Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal
in the class action suit initiated by Perry Cline, is pending.

On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the
Eastern District of Oklahoma against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) and Sunoco
Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. that alleged SPMT failed to
make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells
and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments.

On October 3, 2019, the Court certified a class to include all
persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or
after July 7, 2012 and who have not already been paid statutory
interest on the untimely payments (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds
that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments, and
pass-through payments, as well as governmental agencies and
publicly traded oil and gas companies.

After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting
from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that
awarded the Class actual damages of $74.8 million for late payment
interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and
interest-on-interest.

This amount was later amended to $80.7 million to account for
interest accrued from the trial. Judge Gibney also awarded punitive
damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking
attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2020, SPMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th
Circuit and appealed the entirety of the Order.

Energy Transfer said, "SPMT cannot predict the outcome of the case,
nor can SPMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the appeal, but intends to vigorously appeal
the entirety of the Order."

Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.

ENERGY TRANSFER: Court Favors Regency Defendants in Dieckman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware ruled in favor of the Regency
Defendants on both remaining counts at issue of the class action
suit initiated by Adrian Dieckman.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency Energy
Partners LP unitholder, filed a class action complaint related to
the Regency-ETO merger in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency
GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer LP (ET), Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. (ETO), Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP),
and the members of Regency's board of directors.

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of
Chancery.

Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint,
which defendants moved to dismiss.

The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC. The Court of Chancery
later granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification.


Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing
was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15, 2021, the Court of
Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on both remaining
counts at issue in this litigation.

Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.

EPIC GAMES: Set to Settle Class Action Over Fortnite Loot Boxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Orland, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Epic is set to
settle a class-action lawsuit over its use of randomized loot boxes
in Fortnite's "Save the World" mode by paying affected players with
in-game currency. Rocket League players who previously purchased
loot boxes in that game will also receive an in-game payment.

While Epic never offered loot boxes in Fortnite's mega-popular
battle royale mode, it let "Save the World" players purchase "loot
llamas" full of random items until early 2019 (amid international
outcry about the randomized loot-box business and its similarity to
gambling). Shortly after ending the practice, Epic was faced with a
class-action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that it had
"psychologically manipulate[d] its young players into thinking they
will 'get lucky.'"

Under a proposed settlement for that suit, which Epic says has
achieved preliminary approval, all players who purchased a loot
llama at any time will be rewarded with 1,000 V-Bucks (worth
roughly $8). Even though it's settling a US lawsuit, Epic says this
same deal will apply to all Fortnite players globally.

Rocket League players will similarly receive 1,000 credits (worth
roughly $9.10) if they bought a randomized Event Crate or key in
that game before Epic stopped offering them in October 2019 (just
months after it purchased Rocket League developer Psyonix). Players
of both games won't have to do anything to claim the benefit, which
will appear in their accounts in the coming days.

A marketing bargain?
Epic estimates roughly 6.5 million Fortnite players and 2.9 million
Rocket League players will receive the automatic virtual currency
payments, according to The Verge. That suggests a rough valuation
of over $78.3 million in digital reward payouts as part of the
settlement. [Update: An Epic spokesperson has clarified to Ars
Technica that these numbers only cover the US players who will be
receiving the digital currency payout. An undisclosed number of
non-US Fortnite players will also be receiving the 1,000 V-Bucks.]

The actual cost incurred by Epic for the giveaway will likely end
up much lower, though. Distributing the purely virtual currency
incurs minimal direct costs for Epic and only poses an indirect
cost in the sense that it replaces virtual currency purchases those
players would have made anyway. Some lapsed players won't end up
using their digital windfall at all, while others would not have
spent any additional money in the game regardless.

In a way, the digital giveaway could even be seen as an effective
promotion, luring players back to the games and creating the
potential for them to spend more on additional microtransactions
down the road. In that sense, the settlement is somewhat
reminiscent of a Nintendo price-fixing case that the company
settled with prosecutors in 1991. The payout there came in the form
of a $5 coupon that could only be redeemed by buying additional
Nintendo products, a marketing coup that Nintendo is probably sad
it didn't come up with itself.

In addition to the virtual currency, Epic will also be providing
"up to $26.5 million in cash and other benefits to U.S.-based
Fortnite and Rocket League players" to settle the claims. Those
cash payments (of up to $50 per claimant) will only be available to
players who submit an active claim form establishing that they
think their purchase constituted "consumer fraud" or breach of
contract. Minors in California who purchased a loot box "with
[their] own money and without parental permission" will also be
eligible for a cash refund of up to $50 if they submit a claim.

"We believe players should know upfront what they are paying for
when they make in-game purchases," Epic wrote in a tweet announcing
the move on Feb. 22. "This is why we only offer X-Ray Llamas that
show you the contents before you purchase them in 'Save the World'"
(and similarly transparent blueprints in Rocket League).

While some European countries have banned loot boxes as a form of
illegal gambling, legislative efforts to regulate the practice in
some US states (and the US Senate) have by and large stalled after
gaining some momentum in 2018 and 2019. [GN]


EPIC GAMES: Williams Sues Over Game's Manipulation of Minors
------------------------------------------------------------
K.W. (a minor and through K.W.'s guardian, Jillian Williams) and
Jillian Williams, individually, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Epic Games, Inc., a
Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00976 (N.D. Cal.,
February 8, 2021), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary
relief under the California Business and Professional Code.

Epic Games is a video gaming company that owns flagship game
Fortnite. Through Fortnite, Epic Games transacts with video-game
currency, virtual items and game content and makes its users pay
using real money. Williams alleges that the game enticed her child
into buying more and more virtual things and claims that each
purchase of items, or game content constitutes a contract between a
minor and Epic Games. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter R Afrasiabi, Esq.
     ONE LLP
     4000 MacArthur Blvd.
     East Tower, Suite 500
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Telephone: (949) 502-2870
     Facsimile: (949) 258-5081
     Email: pafrasiabi@onellp.com

            - and -

     John E. Lord, Esq.
     ONE LLP
     9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310) 866-5157
     Facsimile: (310) 943-2085
     Email: jlord@onellp.com

            - and -

     Maximillian N. Amster, Esq.
     Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq.
     BAY ADVOCACY PLLC
     1700 South Mac Dill Avenue
     Tampa, FL 33629
     Telephone: (813) 251-6262
     Email: max@bayadvocacy.com
            sam@bayadvocacy.com


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due October 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ESTENSON
LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; 12 HUB GROUP
TRUCKING, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 13 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP (C.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Kronstdat entered an order approving in part the
joint stipulation to vacate the current dates set in this action;
continue the deadline for defendants to file a responsive pleading;
and propose new dates per the court's February 8, 2021 order.

The current pretrial and class certification dates are vacated. The
deadline for the Defendants to file a response to the operative
complaints is continued to April 7, 2021.

The following deadlines are set:

               Event                               Date

   Deadline to file motion for class      October 25, 2021
   certification:

   Deadline to file opposition to         November 23, 2021
   motion for class certification:

   Deadline to file reply in support of   December 10, 2021
   motion for class certification:

   Last day to participatre in            December 17, 2021
   settlement conference / mediation:

   Hearing on motion for class            January 10, 2022
   certificatoon:

   Last date to file notice of            January 12, 2021
   settlement:

   Post-Mediation Status Conference:      January 24, 2022

   Non-Expert discovery cutoff:           February 25, 2022

   Initial expert disclosures:            March 14, 2022

   Rebuttal  expert disclosures:          March 28, 2022

   Expert discovery cutoff:               April 11, 2022

   Last day to file all motions:          April 18, 2022

Estenson provides logistics services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bb5ZOd at no extra charge.[CC]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Alhadeff Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Albert Alhadeff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 30-02021-01179274-CU-MC-CXC was removed from the Orange
County Superior Court-Central Justice Ctr, to the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00395 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Phone: (949) 851-3939
          Fax: (949) 553-7539
          Email: javogt@jonesday.com


F21 OPCO: Taylor BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTAVIA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. F21 OPCO, LLC D/B/A FOREVER 21, Case
No. 2021CH00000011, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of
Lake County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01197 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the
Plaintiff's and Class members' fingerprints without: (i) obtaining
their written consent; (ii) informing them of the specific purpose
and length of time their fingerprints would be collected, stored,
or used; and (iii) a written and publicly-available policy
establishing data retention and destruction guidelines.

F21 Opco, LLC, doing business as Forever 21, is an American fashion
retailer headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
         Kenn Brotman, Esq.
         Marvis A. Barnes II, Esq.
         K&L GATES LLP
         70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60602-4207
         Telephone: (312) 372-1121
         Facsimile: (312) 827-8108
         E-mail: molly.mcginley@klgates.com
                 kenn.brotman@klgates.com
                 marvis.barnes@klgates.com

FABFITFUN INC: Gaston Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL GASTON and RENATE
GARRISON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. FABFITFUN, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 5, 2021 for an
order:

   a. certifying a Nationwide Class of:

      "all individuals identified by FabFitFun, Inc.
      and to whom FabFitFun sent notice that their
      information may have been exposed in a data security
      incident whereby third parties may have accessed the
      Defendant's customers' Personal Information in connection
      with unauthorized access to Defendant's website";

   b. certifying a Colorado Subclass of:

      "all individuals identified by FabFitFun and to whom
      FabFitFun sent notice that their information may have been
      exposed in a data security incident whereby third parties
      may have accessed the Defendant's unauthorized access to
      the Defendant's website";

   c. certifying an Oregon Subclass of:

      "all individuals identified by FabFitFun and to whom
      FabFitFun sent notice that their information may have been
      exposed in a data security incident whereby third parties
      may have accessed customers' Personal Information in
      connection with Defendant's unauthorized access to
      Defendant's website";

   d. appointing Cheryl Gaston and Renate Garrison as class
      representatives;

   e. appointing Cheryl Gaston as the subclass representative of
      the Colorado Subclass;

   f. appointing Renate Garrison as the subclass representative
      of the Oregon Subclass; and

   g. appointing Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      and Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corp. as
      Class Counsel.

The proposed "Class Period" is April 26, 2020 to May 14, 2020 and
May 22, 2020 to August 3, 2020.

FabFitFun retails curated boxes of health and beauty products to
its customers through an online subscription service. The Company
offers a daily e-mail service that gives readers tips on beauty,
wellness, diet, fitness, and fashion.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ol37Fq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  lguillon@justice4you.com

FACEBOOK INC: Bid for Class Certification Due April 8
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOTSTRATEGY, CO.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the
Parties jointly stipulate to and ask Court's approval for the
following schedule for briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification:

               Event                       Proposed Deadline

   Motion for class certification            April 8, 2021
   currently due Thursday, March 11,
   2021):

   The Plaintiff's deadline to               April 8, 2021
   identify class certification
   expert witnesses and serve
   reports and underlying supporting
   materials:

   Opposition to motion for class            May 6, 2021
   certification (currently due
   Thursday, April 1, 2021)


   The Defendant's deadline to               May 6, 2021
   identify class certification
   expert witnesses and serve
   reports and underlying supporting
   materials:

   Reply in support of motion for            May 27, 2021
   class certification (currently
   due April 15, 2021):

   The Plaintiff's deadline to               May 27, 2021
   serve class certification rebuttal
   expert reports and underlying
   supporting materials:

   Hearing on motion for class               June 10, 2021 or
   certification (currently April            such other date
   29, 2021):                                at the Court's
                                             convenience

Facebook is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3kGZohIat no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com

               - and -

          David a. Hodges, esq.
          THE DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM
          212 Center Street, 5 th Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com

The Defendant Facebook, Inc. is represented by:

          Ashley M. Simonsen, Esq.
          Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
          Sean F. Howell, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & B URLING LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
          Telephone: (424) 332-4782
          Facsimile: (424) 332-4749
          E-mail: asimonsen@cov.com
                  sfrankel@cov.com
                  showell@cov.com
                  kcahoy@cov.com

FALONI LAW: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faloni Law Group,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Raynaldo Torres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Faloni Law Group, LLC,
CVI SGP-CO Acquisition Trust, Case No. 2:21-cv-04023-SDW-LDW
(D.N.J., March 3, 2021).

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

Faloni Law Group, LLC -- https://falonilaw.com/ -- is a full
service Law Firm which was founded over 40 years ago by David A.
Faloni, Sr., Esq.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Avenue, Apt. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (877) 827-3395
          Fax: (877) 827-3394
          Email: benkap232@aol.com


FANDANGO MEDIA: Goldstein Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jason Goldstein, individiually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fandango Media, LLC, Case No.
502021CA001745XXXXMB was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of Florida on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:21-cv-80466-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as 950 Constitutional - State
Statute.

Fandango Media, LLC -- https://www.fandango.com/ -- is an American
ticketing company that sells movie tickets via their website as
well as through their mobile app, as well as a provider of
television and streaming media information, e.g., through its
subsidiaries Flixster, Movies.com, and Rotten Tomatoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: 954-400-4713
          Email: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nury Agudo Siekkinen, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN PLLC
          1900 M St NW, Ste. 250
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 706-5229
          Email: nury@zwillgen.com


FEED PROJECTS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feed Projects LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Feed Projects LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01833 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

FEED -- https://feedprojects.com/ -- is an impact-driven lifestyle
brand, making products that help feed the children of the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Mayer Rosenberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a FBCS, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01086 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions (FCBS) --
https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in
Hatboro, Pennsylvania.[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


FIREMAN'S FUND: Water Sports Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Water Sports Kauai, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WATER SPORTS KAUAI, INC.,
DBA SAND PEOPLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, and ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE
CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03750-WHO, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair or
deceptive business practices.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated business entities that purchased insurance
policy from the Defendants, alleges that the Defendants denied its
insurance claim for business interruption coverage despite the fact
that it suffered and continues to suffer substantial lost business
income and other financial losses following the closure of its
stores in Hawaii as mandated by the government to prevent the
spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants also decided to
deny and denied the Plaintiff's claims without any inspection or
review of its physical locations or documents concerning its
business activities in 2020. The Plaintiff argues that the policy
is an all-risk property damage policy because its terms indicate
that it covers all risks which can cause harm to physical property
except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded. The
policy also provides civil authority coverage, pursuant to which
Defendants agreed that they will pay for the actual loss of
business income sustained and necessary extra expense caused by
action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described
premises.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated February
1, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss its second amended
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as WATER SPORTS KAUAI, INC., a
Hawaii corporation, on behalf itself and all others similarly
situated, DBA Sand People, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FIREMAN'S FUND
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; NATIONAL SURETY
CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation; ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 21-15366, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, March 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on March 9, 2021;

   -- Appellant's opening brief is due on May 3, 2021;

   -- Appellees' answering brief is due on June 2, 2021; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief.[BN]

FLAUM APPETIZING: Final Approval of Collective Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO PERECHU and CESAR
DURAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
FLAUM APPETIZING CORP. d/b/a FLAUM APPETIZING, and MOSHE GRUNHUT
and AVIRAM CHEN, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01085-SJB
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for final approval of
class and collective action settlement, for award of attorneys'
fees and expenses, for approval of service payments to the class
representative and original opt-ins and for approval of payment of
the claims administrator's costs and expenses.

The plaintiffs ask that the court review and approve the terms of
the proposed settlement of this matter, both as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Plaintiffs' claims under the New York
Labor Law. The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court approve the
proposed apportionment of the settlement proceeds, after conducting
a hearing about the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlement.

Flaum is located in Brooklyn, New York, and is part of the food
wholesalers industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2PvoGUpat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Severance Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY CARROLL, TODD VAN DER JAGT, JERRY RAY, TONY JELINEK, STEPHEN
ANDERSON, and FRED MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.;
JERALD K. DITTMER; DERECK P. SCHMIDT; and UNNAMED FIDUCIARIES OF
FLEXSTEEL'S ERISA-GOVERNED SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00021 (N.D. Iowa, March 2, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988, and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Flexsteel refused to pay
employee benefits as required by its ERISA-governed severance plan
when it terminated eligible employees from January 1, 2020 to the
present. Flexsteel failed to provide 60-day notice or the
equivalent amount of pay to employees required by the WARN Act when
it closed locations in Dubuque, Iowa and Starkville, Mississippi,
on or around April 28, 2020 that employed a total of approximately
370 workers. Flexsteel also failed to pay Dubuque employees all
wages due under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act.

Flexsteel Industries, Inc. is a furniture company headquartered in
Dubuque, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq.
         Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq.
         O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, P.L.C.
         2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S
         Davenport, IO 52807
         Telephone: (563) 355-6060
         Facsimile: (563) 355-6666
         E-mail: dao@emprights.com
                 kawm@emprights.com

FRANCE: Families Join Suit After Deaths in Nursing Homes
--------------------------------------------------------
A Paris court [held] a hearing in a class-action effort to hold
French health authorities and companies accountable after thousands
with the virus died in nursing homes, and families were locked out
and left in the dark about what was happening to their isolated
loved ones.

The hearing is a first step in likely a years-long legal marathon.
Families hope it shines a light on what went wrong last year as the
virus devastated France's oldest generation and deprived their
children and grandchildren of a chance to help or even say
goodbye.

"We want to ensure that mistakes aren't repeated, that someone is
held responsible," said plaintiff Sabrina Deliry, who has mobilized
families around France since her mother's Paris nursing home was
first locked down a year ago.

The hearing involves a special measure to demand access to
documents or other material involving decisions at nursing homes.
It is among many legal efforts around the mismanagement of the
pandemic that are working through the French justice system. Others
include manslaughter charges, or target top government ministers,
but this could be one of the most far-reaching cases.

It targets several nursing homes, the national health agency DGS,
the Paris public hospital authority and others. Plaintiffs include
family members of nursing home residents, doctors and
associations.

Their complaint focuses on multiple issues at French homes for the
elderly and disabled during the first half of 2020. Those flaws
included mask shortages for residents and staff; testing shortages;
the use of a powerful sedative called Rivotril on some residents
while homes were locked down; and opaque decisions on which
residents received hospital treatment for the virus and which were
left to suffer or die in their nursing homes.

The national health agency, the Paris hospital authority and two of
the nursing homes named did not respond to requests for comment
ahead of the hearing.

After France recorded Europe's first virus infections and deaths a
year ago, French officials shut down nursing homes to outsiders and
kept residents inside. The government said it had to act fast to
protect the country's most vulnerable populations. But many
families say the lockdown deprived them of decision-making
abilities for their loved ones, and that in some cases the enforced
isolation worsened cognitive and other health problems.

Recognizing these concerns, President Emmanuel Macron relaxed some
rules for nursing homes ahead of everything else as France's first
lockdown eased. But for many, the damage had already been done. And
new waves of infections in the summer, fall and winter sent many
nursing homes back into temporary, repeated shutdowns.

Official figures show that nearly 25,000 people with the virus have
died in French nursing homes out of more than 87,000 lives lost
nationwide -- a death toll still climbing by hundreds every day.
But thousands of other French nursing home residents who contracted
COVID-19 died after being hospitalized, and studies suggest they
make up as many as half of France's overall virus victims. That is
among the highest proportions worldwide.

French officials say mask shortages at the outset of the pandemic
were beyond their control and a global problem and note that masks
have been mandatory and widely available since last summer. Nursing
home directors have defended their decisions to lock out visitors
given the vulnerabilities of their residents.

Dr. Alain Masclet, head of group AR2S involved in the lawsuit, said
the court process "will allow us to define what was forgotten, the
shortages, the failures."

The goal, he said, should be to ensure: "Never again." [GN]

FRED MEYER: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Meyer Jewelers,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Fred Meyer Jewelers,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01120 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Fred Meyer Jewelers -- https://www.fredmeyerjewelers.com/ -- is a
national chain of jewelers. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fred
Meyer and Kroger. The company also operates under the name Littman
Jewelers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


FURMO LLC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furmo LLC. The case
is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Furmo LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01824
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Furmo LLC -- http://www.thefurmogroup.com/-- is located in Denver,
Colorado and is part of the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G4S SECURE: Snell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS
(USA) INC. The case is styled as James Snell, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.,
Case No. BCV-21-100465 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 3,
2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

G4S Secure Solutions -- https://www.g4s.com/ -- is an
American/British-based security services company, and a subsidiary
of G4S plc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 888-209-8927


GAIN CAPITAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gain Capital Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Gain Capital Group, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01807 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

GAIN Capital Group, LLC -- https://www.gaincapital.com/ -- provides
retail foreign exchange trading services. The Company offers
services such as introducing broker programs, money manager, and
white label solutions to fund managers, commodity trading advisors,
and professional traders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Class Actions Following FDA Report
---------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP reports that the law firm has previously
blogged about the fallout from a Congressional report on the level
of heavy metals in baby foods, including class-action lawsuits
against Gerber Products Co. and Plum, PBC as well FDA's response to
the report.

Unsurprisingly, these lawsuits were just the beginning of a trend
and in recent weeks a series of new class-actions have been filed,
each alleging similar consumer deception claims relating to the
presence of heavy metals in baby foods.

A class action was filed against Gerber Products Co. and Hain
Celestial Group (Hain) in the North District of Illinois for
allegedly omitting and concealing the presence of dangerous levels
of heavy metal in the baby food products they sell.

Another class action was filed in the Northern District of Illinois
against Hain for allegedly misleadingly marketing baby foods such
as Earth's Best Organic Banana Raspberry & Brown Rice Fruit & Grain
Puree as healthy and free of dangerous substances.

Two class-action lawsuits were filed in the North District of New
York against Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. for allegedly misrepresenting
Beech-Nut baby foods are "real food for babies" and failing to
disclose the presence of dangerous levels of heavy metals.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Nurture, Inc. in the
Southern District of New York for allegedly misleadingly marketing
Happy Baby Superfood Puffs as healthy and nutritious for babies and
failing to disclose the presence of heavy metals.

Given the recent filings, the law firm has not yet seen briefing or
any judicial decisions on the merits of the claims. [GN]


GF MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Oct. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD MIGYANKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GF
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00944-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an initial case management order as
follows:

   a. Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) shall be
      made on or before March 1, 2021.

   b. Additional parties shall be joined on or before March 15,
      2021.

   c. Pleadings shall be amended on or before March 15, 2021.

   d. Class certification discovery shall be completed on or
      before June 22, 2021.

   e. The Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be filed on or before
      July 22, 2021.

   f. The Defendant's expert reports shall be filed on or before
      August 23, 2021.

   g. Depositions of class certification experts shall take
      place on or before September 8, 2021.

   h. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be
      filed on or before October 8, 2021.

   i. The Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's
      Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before
      November 8, 2021.

   j. The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification
      shall be filed on or before November 22, 2021.

GF Management provides hospitality management services. The Company
owns and manages hotels, resorts, conference centers, catering
facilities, waterparks, casinos, and golf courses, as well as
offers management advisory and consulting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kMJoe3 at no extra charge.[CC]

GLADDEN EQUIPMENT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gladden Equipment
Erectors, Inc. The case is styled as Gonzalo Lopez, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Gladden Equipment Erectors, Inc., a California corporation, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0001816 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
March 2, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment".

Gladden Equipment Erectors, Inc. is a construction company based in
Tracy, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          STANSBURY BROWN LAW
          2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd
          Venice, CA 90291-5590
          Phone: (323) 207-5925
          Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com


GODADDY INC: Settlement Objector Files Notice of Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a single objector to the
settlement filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR) (D. Ariz.), filed on June
20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). On September 23, 2019, the
parties fully executed a written settlement agreement.

On December 16, 2019, the company amended the settlement agreement
to include two additional putative class action cases, which also
alleged violations of the TCPA: John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC
(Case No. 2:16-cv-00254 (D. Ariz.), appeal pending 18-16048 (9th
Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563)
(S.D. Ala.). In 2019, the company recorded an $18.1 million charge
to general and administrative expense, representing our original
estimated loss provision for this settlement.

Under the terms of the final settlement agreement, the company made
available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members,
at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used
for future purchases of products from us; (ii) an incentive payment
to the class representatives; (iii) notice and administration costs
in connection with the settlement; and (iv) attorneys' fees to
legal counsel representing the class.

On April 22, 2020, the parties filed statements in response to a
request from the S.D. Ala. Court (the Court) to refine the class
definition, resulting in a reduction in the total number of class
members from the original estimated class. Accordingly, the company
recorded a $2.9 million reduction of our estimated loss provision
to general and administrative expense during the three months ended
March 31, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, the Court granted approval of the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary certification of the settlement
class, subject to the parties' execution of an amended settlement
agreement to remove John Herrick as a class representative.

The parties executed such amendment on May 26, 2020, and on June 9,
2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the final
settlement agreement. The Court's order also set October 7, 2020 as
the deadline for class members to submit claims and December 14,
2020 as the hearing date regarding final approval of the
settlement.

On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an amended order reducing
the attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the
class. Additionally, the actual number of claims made by class
members through the October 7, 2020 deadline was lower than our
original estimates. Based primarily on these two factors, the
company recorded a $4.8 million reduction of our estimated loss
provision to general and administrative expense during the three
months ended September 30, 2020.

On December 23, 2020, the Court issued a final judgment and order
approving the class settlement, which further reduced the
attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class
and denied plaintiffs' request for an incentive payment.

Additionally, the actual notice and administration costs associated
with the settlement were lower than originally estimated.

On January 19, 2021, a single objector to the settlement filed a
notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result of these developments, the company recorded a $2.3
million reduction to general and administrative expense during the
three months ended December 31, 2020, lowering the company's
estimated loss provision for this settlement to $8.1 million on
December 31, 2020. The timing of the payments to be made under the
final settlement agreement is pending resolution of the appeal.

The company had denied and continue to deny the allegations in the
complaint. Nothing in the final settlement agreement shall be
deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such
litigation.

The company received a full release from the settlement class
(other than from those class members who timely elected to opt out
of the settlement) concerning the claims asserted, or that could
have been asserted, with respect to the claims released in the
final settlement agreement. Our legal fees associated with this
matter have been recorded to general and administrative expense as
incurred and were not material.

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Report Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00586 (S.D. Tex., February 24, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant seeking redress for its
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite not being a customer of the
Defendant, the Defendant requested and obtained his Innovis credit
report without obtaining his consent or authorization and without a
permissible purpose enumerated in the FCRA. Purportedly, the
Defendant created false representations to access the Plaintiff's
highly confidential credit information from Innovis by
misrepresenting that the Plaintiff applied for credit from the
Defendant, that the Plaintiff had a current business relationship
with the Defendant, and that the Defendant will be making a firm
offer of credit to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that he has
not applied for or otherwise sought any products or lines of credit
from the Defendant, and he did not receive a firm offer of credit
from the Defendant after the Defendant accessed his Innovis credit
report.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff has been harmed in the form of anxiety, distress, mental
anguish, and fear that he may be a victim of identity theft,
intrusion upon seclusion, and privacy invasion.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated persons
within the U.S. that had their consumer credit report obtained by
the Defendant, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to seek for
injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from accessing consumer
credit reports without a permissible purpose, as well as actual,
statutory, and punitive damages, litigation costs and reasonable
attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC operates as an investment management
company that offers investment banking, securities, asset
management, capital market, valuation, bonds, funds, financial
analysis, investment strategies, and advisory services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630) 575-8180
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                  vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses Stadia Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Jensen, Esq. -- fjensen@fkks.com -- of Frankfurt Kurnit
Klein & Selz PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that a lawsuit
filed against Google alleges that the tech company greatly
exaggerated the quality and resolution of games available on
Stadia, Google's cloud gaming service. Stadia does not require a
console and allows players to play video games streamed over the
internet to multiple devices (TV, laptop, tablet, and mobile).

The class action lawsuit here, originally filed in Queens County
Superior Court in October of 2020 and removed to New York federal
court on February 12, 2021, claims that Google violated consumer
protection laws designed to protect against unfair and deceptive
business practices and false advertising in all fifty states and
the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges that Google used
false and misleading statements about how all games on Stadia would
be playable at 4k resolution and failed to deliver on its promise
that Stadia was more powerful than gaming consoles.

The complaint points to several articles and media reports that
surfaced after Stadia's launch, which debunked Google's claims by
explaining that games touted as 4K resolution were not in fact in
true or native 4K. Instead, the games reportedly ran at 1080p or
1440p resolution, and were upscaled to 4K on Stadia and the Google
Chromecast Ultra (which is needed to play Stadia games at 4K).
While it may be the responsibility of the developer to provide
gaming content quality such as 4K resolution and 60
frames-per-second, the complaint alleges that Google did nothing to
correct the misinformation that all Stadia games would be 4K.

The complaint alleges that some of the articles were later changed,
insinuating that the edits may have been at Google's direction to
soften the blow from the negative press. Additionally, the
complaint alleges that some of Google's own statements on Twitter
and the Stadia website were later revised or removed to obscure
information after the news that the quality and resolution of
Stadia games were not as originally claimed.

If the lawsuit proceeds, the class is seeking damages in the
amounts of the Stadia subscription packages, as well as injunctive
relief to stop the allegedly unfair and deceptive practices. In
other words, in addition to giving refunds to anyone who purchased
a Founder's Edition, Premiere Edition, or paid for a Stadia Pro
subscription, the plaintiffs are requesting that Google list the
resolution of games offered on the Stadia store. This lawsuit, in
addition to the recent announcement that Google shuttered its
internal game development studio, is yet another bump in the road
for Google's Stadia project.

Developers, publishers, and platform providers should be mindful of
over-promising, as is the case for all advertisers. Consumers
recognize the difference between what a company promises and what
it actually delivers, and many in the gaming community are keen to
pick up on those differences. This should serve as a reminder that
potentially serious legal exposure arises when features are
advertised in pre-release marketing that do not appear in final
products sold to consumers.

Google has done nothing to correct the false information concerning
the power and resolution of the games available on Stadia and does
not disclose to consumers in the Google Stadia store the resolution
of each of the games available for purchase. [GN]


GREENWAY HEALTH: Altamonte Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTAMONTE PEDIATRIC
ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida Corporation, v. GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:20-cv-00604-VMC-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting its
motion to certify the case as a class action.

Altamonte, and more than small medical practices like it entered
into materially uniform contracts. Under these contracts, each
practice paid Greenway tens of thousands of dollars for standard
software that never performed as Greenway promised. Greenway
claimed for years that it would fix the software. It never did. Yet
Greenway refused to allow the medical practices to stop paying
Greenway the monthly fees for broken software, much less refund to
them the tens of millions of dollars Greenway already bilked out of
them, the complaint says.

Nearly a decade ago, Greenway began selling the at-issue software
under the brand name the "Intergy Meaningful Use Edition." As the
name suggested and Greenway expressly promised in contracts with
Altamonte and other customers, Intergy was supposed to comply with
the standards of the government's "Meaningful Use" ("MU") program.
Starting in 2010, the MU program codified the baseline feature set
for all Electronic Health Record ("EHR") software sold in the U.S.
Contrary to the product's namesake and unbeknownst to Greenway's
customers, however, the Intergy Meaningful Use Edition software
failed to comply with the MU standards for years. Greenway now
admits that the "Meaningful Use Edition" of Intergy was not, in
fact, compliant with "Meaningful Use." Indeed, Greenway has
attempted (and failed) to fix Intergy to make it compliant for more
than two years. None of the customers who paid for this faulty
product received the full benefit of their bargain.

Greenway Health, LLC is a privately-owned company currently based
in Florida, founded in 2013 following Vista Equity Partners'
acquisition of other, similar companies. It sells technological
products to healthcare providers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bVMicr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
          Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
          James C. Bradley, Esq.
          Caleb Hodge, Esq.
          ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK &
          BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A (29464)
          Post Office Box 1007
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500

               - and -

          Brett Ialacci, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2001 Park Place, North Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          E-mail: bialacci@badhambuck.com

               - and -

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave.
          Suite 201H, No. 105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC
          750 Hammond Drive
          Building 12, Suite 350
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (770) 668-2081
          E-mail: cknowles@cckfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER, LC
          213 Hale Street
          Charleston, W 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-034
          E-mail: tbailey@bjc4u.com

GRIDDY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Price Gouging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Click2Houston reports that a Chambers County woman has filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against the electric company,
Griddy.

According to a news release, Mont Belvieu resident Lisa Khoury said
the company engaged in "unlawful price gouging" during the winter
storm.

Khoury said her average bill is usually between $200 and $250, but
the electric bill from Feb. 13 through Feb. 19 came out to $9,340
because the company "began making withdrawals from her bank account
daily."

According to the release, Khoury was only without power for one day
and, even when she had power, was cognizant of usage out of fear
for a high electricity bill.

The lawsuit claims the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and is seeking an injunction to prevent Griddy from
"billing and collecting payment for excessive prices and demands
the forgiving of any late or unpaid bills from customers."

"At this point we don't know how many people might be affected, but
there are likely thousands of customers who've received these
outrageous bills," says Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in
Houston, who represents Khoury. "A class-action will be the most
efficient and effective way for Griddy's customers to come together
and fight this predatory pricing."

Khoury and others involved in the lawsuit are seeking $1 billion in
monetary relief.

This is not the first time Griddy customers have felt the effects
of extreme weather on the electric bills.

Customers pay $9.99 a month and in return, the company gives them
electricity at wholesale prices. This means that if the company's
wholesale price goes up, the customer's price goes up as well.

Many people experienced this firsthand in 2019 when prices
skyrocketed in the summer and people ended up paying hundreds of
dollars due to a heat wave that caused a spike in wholesale
prices.

Griddy said it has 29,000 members. It's unclear how many other
Texans also pay wholesale prices from other companies. [GN]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses

This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of GTT
Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or the "Company") from February 26,
2018 to August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"),
and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").

Your Rights Will Be Affected By A Class Action Lawsuit Pending In
This Court.

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for twenty-five million dollars
($25,000,000.00) (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on April 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Claude M. Hilton at the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Albert V. Bryan United States
Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Room 800, Alexandria, VA 22314,
to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendant Releasees, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. The
capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as they have
in the Stipulation.

The Court may adjourn the Settlement Hearing or any adjournment
thereof without further written notice of any kind to the
Settlement Class. Settlement Class Members should check the
settlement website at www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com, the Court's
PACER site (defined below), or contact Lead Counsel at the address
below.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at GTT Securities
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91247, Seattle, WA
98111, 888-906-0555. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form are also
available by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee,
through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) system at https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/, or by visiting
the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Albert V. Bryan United States
Courthouse, 410 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314 during
normal business hours. Additionally, the Notice and Claim Form can
be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to
potentially be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or completed
online no later than June 6, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

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

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

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

For any questions, visit www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com or call
toll-free at 888-906-0555.

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

SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 206-6708
lhooker@saxenawhite.com

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

GTT Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91247
Seattle, WA 98111
888-906-0555
www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court

URL: http://www.GTTSecuritiesLitigation.com

Contact Information:
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 206-6708
lhooker@saxenawhite.com [GN]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Albano Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI-ANNE ALBANO, MYJORIE PHILIPPE, REBECCA TELARO, and ALYSSA
ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., BEECH-NUT NUTRITION
COMPANY, GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, and NURTURE, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01118 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the New York General Business Law and the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
misleading representations of their baby food products under the
Earth's Best, Beech-Nut, Gerber, and HappyBABY brands. The
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to consumers, including the
Plaintiffs, that the products contained high level of toxic heavy
metals. Had the Plaintiffs and the Class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the products or would have paid less for
them.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with a principal place of business in Lake Success, New York,
Nassau County.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Company is a baby food company headquartered in
Amsterdam, New York.

Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Nurture, Inc. is an organic baby and toddler food company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 838-7797
         Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
         E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

                - and –

         Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
         Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
         Brian E. Johnson, Esq.
         Paul M. Stephan, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW
         East Tower, 5th Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                 ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                 bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 pstephan@cohenmilstein.com

                - and –

         Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
         Mark Troutman, Esq.
         Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
         GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
         505 14th Street, Suite 110
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 350-9700
         Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
         E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com

HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
---------------------------------------------------------
Katesha Smith and Miranda Fogle, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case
No. 4:21-cv-00129-BP (W.D. Mo., March 2, 2021), is brought as a
consumer protection and false advertising class action lawsuit
against Hain Celestial based on its misleading and unfair business
practices with respect to the marketing and sale of certain Earth's
Best baby food products which contain elevated levels of toxic
heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, arsenic, and mercury (the
"Products"), in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act.

Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs and consumers, the Products
contain levels of toxic heavy metals which exceed FDA guidance and
Hain Celestial's own standards, asserts the complaint. The U.S.
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a staff report on
February 4, 2021 confirming that commercial baby foods, including
those sold by Hain Celestial, contain significant levels of toxic
heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury (the
"Staff Report"). The Staff Report follows a national investigation
by Healthy Babies Bright Futures which also confirms the presence
of elevated levels of toxic heavy metals in an October 2019 report
(the "HBBF Report").

According to the complaint, nothing on the Products' labels warns
consumers of these elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. Hain
Celestial's failure to disclose the elevated presence of toxic
metals is injurious to consumers, as consumers purchase the
Products reasonably believing that the Products would not contain
dangerous contaminants, including but not limited to toxic heavy
metals. These omitted facts are material to consumers as they
pertain to the Products' safety and the quality of the Products'
ingredients, including whether they are contaminated with any toxic
substances. Consumers do not know, and have no reason to know, that
the Products contain toxic heavy metals at elevated levels.
Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for consumption,
particularly in the context of baby food, where the consumer is
particularly sensitive to toxic materials.

As a result of the Defendant's failure to disclose the presence of
these toxic heavy metals, consumers purchased the Products when,
had they known of the presence of these contaminants, they would
not have purchased the Products at all. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result of
Defendant's deceptive practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Hain Celestial's products.

Hain Celestial is one of the nation's leading purveyors of what is
considered to be premium quality, healthy baby food.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tim Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER & HERSHEWE, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105-5194
          Phone: (816) 876-2600
          Fax: (816) 221-8763 ()
          Email: timd@dollar-law.com


HAMILTON POINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hidalgo Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON HIDALGO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON POINT GRANARY, LLC d/b/a THE
GRANGE BAR & EATERY, ROY ANTHONY HENLEY, and RITA ROYER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01637 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2021) is
a class and collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around June 2016 to
work as a porter and dishwasher for the Defendants' The Grange Bar
& Eatery until his employment was terminated on or around March 15,
2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed substantial
works prior and after his scheduled hours throughout his employment
with the Defendants. Specifically, from January 2017 to the end of
his employment, he came in about 30 to 60 minutes every workday
before his shift started to get ready for his shift and left about
2 hours past his scheduled shift. He routinely worked for 3 to 4
hours past scheduled shift depending on how busy the restaurant
was. However, although he and similarly situated employees were
required to clock in and out for time-keeping purposes, the
Defendants would adjust their time on the employee time clock
computer so that they were paid even less than the hours that show
on the computer time records. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were not properly compensated by the
Defendants at their hourly rate and the overtime premium rate of
one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all overtime
they worked, the suit says.

In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees with wage notices
and with proper wage statement at all relevant times.

Hamilton Point Granary, LLC d/b/a The Grange Bar & Eatery operates
a restaurant. The Individual Defendants are principals of the
Corporate Defendant who exercise operational control as it related
to all employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


HANWHA TECHWIN: Jacobs BIPA Class Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LEROY JACOBS, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HANWHA TECHWIN
AMERICA, INC. (Filed Jan. 28, 2021) was transferred from the
Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Eastern Division) on Feb. 16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00866 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that "would consist of all
other similarly situated individuals pursuant to Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), and to recover statutory penalties,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages
owed for the violations.

Hanwha Techwin delivers a comprehensive line of security cameras
and surveillance solutions for analog and network based systems.
[BN]

The Defendant Hanwha Techwin America is represented by:

          Nicholas S. Lee, Esq.
          BISHOP DIEHL & LEE, LTD.
          1475 E. Woodfield Rd. Suite 800
          Schaumburg, IL 60173
          Telephone: (847) 969-9123
          Facsimile: (847) 969-9124
          E-mail: nlee@bdl-iplaw.com

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Robert A. Levy Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT E. LEVY,
D.M.D., LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00643-SRC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased insurance from Defendants
to protect their dental practices against losses from catastrophic
events. During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs shut
down their practices entirely, or only saw a few emergency
patients, and made claims under their insurance policies for the
losses caused by the shutdowns. Defendants denied each claim,
asserting that the policies did not cover losses caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore they had no obligation to provide
any coverage.

The Plaintiffs asserted six claims: 1) business income breach of
contract; 2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing applicable to business income 3) declaratory relief
applicable to business income; 4) extra expense breach of contract;
5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
applicable to extra expense; and 6) declaratory relief applicable
to extra expense. The Plaintiffs also sought to represent four
classes of plaintiffs allegedly holding similar policies and
suffering similar losses from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order granting
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing all
counts in this action on February 16, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1446, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 24,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT A. LEVY, D.M.D., LLC; VANESSA N.
KELLER D.M.D. & TRISHA M. YOUNG D.M.D., P.C.; RIVKA GOLDENHERSH
D.M.D., LLC; and FARHAD MOSHIRI, AND MAZYAR MOSHIRI, D.M.D., M.S.,
P.C., dba Moshiri Orthodontics, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
          Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
          555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 735-8100
          Facsimile: (314) 898-3078
          E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                  aj@bruninglegal.com
                  ryan@bruninglegal.com

               - and -

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
          2227 South State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com

HEALTHY HALO: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthy Halo
Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as David Melgren, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Healthy Halo
Insurance Services Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00104-TOR (E.D. Wash.,
March 2, 2021).

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

Healthy Halo -- https://healthyhalo.com/ -- is a full-service
health insurance agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by the City of
Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein,
Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola
(Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.

The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or
otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019
through August 12, 2019.

The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the
Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in
February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that
defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the
transaction were materially false and misleading because they
purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory
management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of
integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First
Choice, understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein,
and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly
large customer in North America just before the Separation and
Merger.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020.

Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, the company's Chief Financial
Officer, as a defendant in the action. Lead plaintiff filed an
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 21, 2020, in
which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a "control person" of
Covetrus.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.

HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v
Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action. The plaintiffs seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

Herbalife said, "The Company is currently unable to reasonably
estimate the amount of the loss that may result from an unfavorable
outcome."

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

HORSEHEAD HOLDING: June 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Horsehead Holding Corp.
Horsehead securities include common stock (CUSIP #440694305); 3.8%
convertible senior notes (CUSIP #440694AB3); 10.50% senior secured
notes (CUSIPs #440694AC1, #440694AE7 and #440694AF4); and 9% senior
unsecured notes (CUSIP # 440694AG2).            

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

To: All persons and entities who purchased Horsehead Holdings Corp.
("Horsehead") securities (CUSIPs #440694305, #440694AB3,
#440694AC1, #440694AE7, #440694AF4 and #440694AG2) during the
period from February 25, 2014 through February 2, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period")1:

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Class Plaintiffs in the Action, on
behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $14.75 million in cash (the
"Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held at 1:00 p.m. ET,
on June 4, 2021, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Leonard P. Stark
at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N King Street, Wilmington, DE
19801, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated January 5, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved. In the event that there are any changes to the time,
date, or method of the Settlement Hearing, such changes will be
posted on the Settlement website at www.horseheadlitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim
Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator at: Horsehead Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson St, Suite 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063; fax: (610) 565-7985; email: claims@horseheadlitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.horseheadlitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than
May 28, 2021, or submitted electronically through the online filing
system at www.horseheadlitigation.com no later than 11:59 p.m. EST
on May 28, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion postmarked no later than May 14, 2021, by the Claims
Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
May 28, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

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

Horsehead Settlement
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
claims@horseheadlitigation.com

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

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Gregory B. Linkh
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 201-9150

By Order of the Court

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), available
at www.horseheadlitigation.com. [GN]


HOUSTON COMMUNITY: Austin Sues Over Race Bias in the Workplace
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY AUSTIN, JOAN AUSTIN, JOHNELLA BRADFORD, ANTRECE BAGGETT,
ASHLEY BRITTON PICOTT, ADRIAN BROWN, CASSANDRA BROWN, DELIAH BROWN,
TRINA CAMPBELL, FELICIA RUCKER CARTER, HYGINUS CHUKWU, SHIRLEY
COLLINS, LISA COOPER, AVA COSEY, MARIE CROMWELL, TERRENCE CROSBY,
MARCUS CURVEY, CAROLYN DAVIS, KAREN DAVIS, SYBLE DAVIS, LINDA
DENKINS, BRIGETTE DENNIS, CHAMEETA DENTON, ANTIONETTE DICKSON,
CHARLES DRAYDEN, ROSEMARY EDWARDS, CATINA EILAND, LORLIE ELLIS,
READRI EPPS, MICALYN FLAGG, ROSALYN FRANCIS, GERALDINE GIBSON,
BRANDY GRIFFIN, AFRAH HASSAN, AVIS HORDE, KIM INGRAM, DAWNICA
JACKSON, RODNEY JACKSON, TROY JEFFERSON, CHINA JENKINS, DEMEITA
JOHNSON, MICHELLE JOHNSON, REGINALD JOHNSON, ANDREA JONES,
STEPHANIE JONES, BEVERLY JOSEPH, PANDORA JUBILEE, BETTY KELLER,
ELLAMEES KELLY MOLO, TERRY KIDD, ELFREDA KING, LATINA KING, EDNA
KINGSLEY, DONNY LEVESTON, CONRAD LEVY, MARLENE LONDON, DAMITA
MCCLAIN, MARCUS MCNEIL, LUE MIMS, RICARDO MODESTE, KISHMA MORANICE,
MIESHA MOSLEY, AMEENAH MUHAMMAD, MARY PAGE, SHIRLEY PARISH, CYNTHIA
PATTON, WILMA PERKINS, BEVERLY PERRY, GERTRUDE PERRY RIDLEY, SHEILA
QUINN, ERNEST REYNOLDS, KISTEN RHODES, ERICA RHONE, CARRIE
ROBINSON, KATHERINE ROBISON, ROSE RUSSELL, VICTOR SEABORN, YOLANDA
SIMMONS MOORE, SONYA SNEED, JONATHAN TAYLOR, SHIARNICE TAYLOR,
CRYSTAL THOMAS, BRENDA TILLIS ALLEN, GODWIN UNUIGBOKHAI, LAQUINTA
VARGAS, GERMAINE WASHINGTON, FREDERICA WATSON, ALYSSA WALLACE,
DONNA WILLIAMS, AND TINA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00686 (S.D. Tex., March 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
rights protected in 42 U.S. Constitution.

The case arises out of the deliberate acts of racial discrimination
by Cesar Maldonado, chancellor of Houston Community College (HCC)
in 2014, and his staff, undertaken in their decision-making and
policy-making positions, on behalf of HCC. The complained-of
practices and policies of HCC treated non-Hispanic Black employees
like Plaintiffs differently from Hispanic and White employees. The
claims in this suit include damages resulting from retaliatory
actions taken against the Plaintiffs because of their race and/or
for their participation in this lawsuit. Maldonado and his
cooperating staff members, like Janet May and Tom Anderson,
collectively acted in concert with one another under color of law
to cause the harm and damages. The Plaintiffs were all targeted,
mistreated, demoted, suspended, improperly investigated, falsely
accused, not hired, and/or asked to admit to objectively false
accusations manufactured against them, and when they objected or
refused to be complicit in their own improper punishment, they were
either improperly disciplined, written-up, not hired or promoted,
and/or removed from the workplace -- all because of their race, the
suit alleges.

Houston Community College is a public institution situated in
Harris County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Benjamin L. Hall, III, Esq.
         William L. Van Fleet II, Esq.
         THE HALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         530 Lovett Blvd.
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 942-9600
         Facsimile: (713) 942-9566
         E-mail: bhall@bhalllawfirm.com
                 bvfleet@comcast.net

                - and –

         George J. Hittner, Esq.
         THE HITTNER GROUP, PLLC
         P.O. Box 541189
         Houston, TX 77254
         Telephone: (713) 505-1003
         E-mail: george.hittner@thehittnergroup.com

                - and –

         Adrian V. Villacorta, Esq.
         THE VILLACORTA LAW FIRM, P.C.
         530 Lovett Blvd.
         Houston, TX 77057
         Telephone: (832) 991-8864
         Facsimile: (832) 201-7469
         E-mail: avillacorta@avvlaw.com

                - and –

         James Ardoin, Esq.
         JIMMY ARDOIN ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         4900 Fournace Place, Suite 550
         Houston, TX 77401
         Telephone: (713) 574-8900
         E-mail: jimmy@jimmyardoinlaw.com

                - and –

         Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq.
         Jordan Warshauer, Esq.
         Edward B. Goolsby, Esq.
         Nathan B. Campbell, Esq.
         AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI MENSING, P.C
         1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
         Houston, TX 77010
         Telephone: (713) 655-1101
         Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
         E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com
                 egoolsby@azalaw.com
                 jwarshauer@azalaw.com
                 ncampbell@azalaw.com

HUMBOLDT BRONCOS: Court Weighs What to Do With Different Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
newsoptimist.ca reports that a Regina judge has reserved his
decision on whether to delay one of the many lawsuits filed after
the deadly Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

Lawyers spent arguing what a delay would mean for a group of
grieving parents who want to move ahead with their case, and what's
fair for all the victims who were on the junior hockey team's bus
that day.

Sixteen people were killed and 13 were injured when, on April 6,
2018, an inexperienced truck driver went through a stop sign and
into the path of the bus at a rural intersection near Tisdale,
Sask.

Justice Graeme Mitchell said he's sensitive to how important the
matter is. At one point during the hearing, he struggled to know
for certain how many individual lawsuits stemmed from the crash.

At the core of the hearing was a proposed class action and whether
a lawsuit brought by five other parents shortly after the crash
should wait until the courts decide if the class can go ahead.

John Rice, a Vancouver lawyer working on the class action, said the
representatives for nine surviving Broncos players were OK with not
bringing their cases forward until after the April 2022
certification hearing.

But the lawyer for five other parents, who all lost children, said
his clients don't want to wait. There's no guarantee the
class-action will be certified, Kevin Mellor said, and it could be
appealed, prolonging the process by several years.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," Mellor told the court.

He said not only would forcing a delay inflict psychological harm
on the parents, they would be burdened with more legal costs. They
have already spent thousands of dollars on the case getting expert
reports and finding witnesses, he said.

Mellor said the last thing the families he's representing thought
they would have to do is defend themselves against other families
to have their day in court.

Rice acknowledged the suffering these parents have faced. But, he
said court needs to consider what's fair for all Broncos victims,
who would also be impacted by court delays.

Because all the lawsuits share similarities, what happens in one
affects others, he argued, and the "least-worst option" is for
everyone to wait until the certification hearing.

After first expressing he wanted to be delicate, Rice said: "Those
that were killed won't be coming back."

"I would ask, my Lord, when you're contemplating the comparative
duress of these litigants please juxtapose the duress of those who
had children killed . . . with the enduring, living harms -
physical and psychological - of the . . . surviving players," Rice
said.

He also suggested the lawsuit from the five families would not be
heard in the next year or so, and the delay would be temporary.

"The closure that they so deservedly want will not happen in any
event before the application for certification is heard."

The class action so far includes the families of 24-year-old Dayna
Brons, the team's athletic therapist from Lake Lenore, Sask., who
died in hospital, and injured goalie Jacob Wassermann, 21, from
Humboldt, Sask. It names as defendants the Saskatchewan government,
the truck driver and the Calgary-based company that employed him.

Rice said other families have since joined, including the families
of Broncos coach Darcy Haugan and bus driver Glen Doerksen. Both
men were killed.

The class action is also open to families who billeted players,
first responders and members of the general public traumatized by
the crash scene.

The early lawsuit represents the families of five who died in the
collision: assistant coach Mark Cross, 27, from Strasbourg, Sask.;
Jaxon Joseph, 20, of St. Albert, Alta.; Logan Hunter, 18, of St.
Albert, Alta.; Jacob Leicht, 19, of Humboldt, Sask.; and Adam
Herold, 16, of Montmartre, Sask.

"I lost my best friend on April 6, 2018," reads an affidavit filed
by Adam's father, Russ Herold.

"I farmed with him. I hunted with him. I snowmobiled with him. I
taught hockey to him and I coached him. My family would spend
summer and winter seasons together at our family cabin as a family.
Adam spent hours on the water wakeboarding.

"Now, nobody goes."

In court filings, Mellor also said a delay could create problems
because the truck driver, Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, could be deported
to India after he is released from prison and before any civil
trial.

In court, Rice said it's unlikely Sidhu would be deported before
the end of the year and the class action also wants to hear from
him. [GN]

IMPINJ INC: Awaits Court Order to Discontinue Plymouth Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the New York State court
has not yet entered an order discontinuing the Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al.

On January 31, 2019, a class-action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of New York against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer, former
chief financial officer, members of the company's board of
directors and the underwriters of its July 2016 initial public
stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public
offering, or SPO.

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to our IPO and SPO,
alleged that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for its products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities
class actions.

In connection with the federal securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, headed by
the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and
Parish of East Baton Rouge, on July 9, 2020, the parties in both
this action and the federal securities class actions executed a
stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims in both actions.


On November 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington entered an order approving the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties in this action
filed stipulation discontinuing this action with prejudice.

The New York State court, significantly hampered by COVID-19, has
not yet entered an order discontinuing the action with prejudice.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each item's unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.

IMPINJ INC: Consolidated Class Suit in Washington Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the consolidated class
action suit headed by the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, has been concluded.


On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and former chief operating officer.

Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on
Form 10-Q for first-quarter 2018 and a concurrent press release
made false or misleading statements about the company's business
prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary
damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and
including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that the company made
false or misleading statements in its financial statements, press
releases and conference calls during the purported class period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought
monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of
the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj,
Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016
through and including February 15, 2018, asserted claims that the
company made false or misleading statements about customer demand
for its products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and
conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and
expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On
February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.
The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's
former chief operating officer, dismissed
product-capability-related allegations against the company's former
chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants
made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand
prior to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all
other claims and defendants.

On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with the
lead plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and
plaintiff in the New York State securities class action discussed
below, the parties in both actions executed a stipulation of
settlement that resolved the claims asserted in both actions. The
settlement provided for a payment to the plaintiff class of $20.0
million.

The company's insurers contributed $14.6 million to the settlement,
and the company contributed the remaining settlement amount of $5.4
million. Accordingly, the company recorded a provision of $5.4
million related to its estimated settlement amount to general and
administrative expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2020,
which was paid during the three months ended September 30, 2020.

On July 29, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On November 20, 2020, following a final
approval hearing the previous day, the court entered an order
approving the settlement and such matter is now closed.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.

INDEPENDENCE HOLDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independence Holding
Company. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Independence Holding
Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00272 (D. Conn., March 2, 2021).

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

Independence Holding Company (IHC) -- http://ir.ihcgroup.com/-- is
a holding company principally engaged in the life and health
insurance busines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Lindh Foster, Esq.
          ERIC LINDH FOSTER LAW, LLC
          48 Main Street
          Old Saybrook, CT 06475
          Phone: (203) 533-4321
          Email: efoster@lindhfoster.com


INSIGHT VENTURE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due April 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK COLACURCIO, MARIS
and DAVID HANSON, and JAMES McMURCHI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII LP,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01856-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Ricardo S. Martinez entered a Rule 16(B) AND Rule 23(D)(2)
scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to file         April 29, 2021
   motion for class certification:

   Opposition to Motion to Certify         May 28, 2021
   Class:

   Reply in Support of Motion to           June 11, 2021
   Certify Class:

   Hearing on Motion to Certify             To be set by the
   Class:                                   Court after briefing
                                            completed

Insight Partners is an American venture capital and private equity
firm based in New York City.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Feb. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kL8E4m at no extra charge.[CC]


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

IRTC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13066&wire=1
SWI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=13066&wire=1
EH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13066&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC)

IRTC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 4, 2020 -
January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13066&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRhythm's business
would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement
rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the
CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in
the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)

SWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 18, 2018
- December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-information-request-form?prid=13066&wire=1

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

Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)

EH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2019
- February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13066&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ehang
Holdings Limited made 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.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-litigation

Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-clover-health-investments-corp-securities-litigation

EHang Holdings Limited (EH)
Class Period: 12/12/2019 - 2/16/2021 (and on February 16, 2021,
only for those who purchased shares at or above the price of
$112.00).
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ehang-holdings-limited-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

fuboTV Inc. (FUBO)
Class Period: 3/23/2020 - 1/4/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-fubotv-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


IRWIN NATURALS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irwin Naturals. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Irwin Naturals, Case No. 1:21-cv-01751
(S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Irwin Naturals -- https://irwinnaturals.com/ -- retails health
supplements. The Company offers nutritional supplements, healthy,
multivitamins, beauty, and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JENNER'S POND: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by March 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MACLEOD, BY AND
THROUGH THE EXECUTOR OF HER ESTATE, JENNY BROOK, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JENNER'S POND, INC.
d/b/a, a/k/a JENNER’S POND RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-03485-ER (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Eduardo C. Robreno
entered an order granting the joint stipulation and request to
modify second scheduling order.

The Deadlines for fact and expert discovery and the motion for
class certification will be extended as follows:

   1. All fact discovery shall be completed by March 8, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification
      by March 8, 2021. The Defendant shall file a response by
      April 7, 2021.

   3. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 7, 2021.
      All other deadlines remain unchanged.

Jenner's Pond, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers assisted living, skilled nursing care, health
and wellness programs, rehabilitation services, and other
amenities. Jenner's Pond serves communities in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rgbiBIat no extra charge.[CC]

Johnson & Johnson: Loses Appeal in Australian Pelvic Mesh Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Australian court dismissed an appeal by
Johnson & Johnson against a ruling that its subsidiary Ethicon had
misled patients and surgeons about the risks of its pelvic mesh
implants.

The full bench of the Federal Court of Australia upheld a November
2019 decision by a federal court judge which found that Ethicon had
sold the implants, used to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse, without warning women about the serious risks and
was negligent, rushing the products to market before proper
testing.

J&J appealed the ruling last year after it was ordered to pay three
women who led the class action a total of A$2.6 million ($2
million) plus legal costs as compensation. There are more than
1,350 women in the class action.

"The appeal decision paves the way to secure damages for all group
members represented by the applicants in the coming months," Shine
Justice, which ran the class action, said in a statement.

J&J said it was reviewing the decision and considering its
options.

"Ethicon believes it acted ethically and responsibly in the
research, development and supply of its transvaginal mesh products
and appropriately and responsibly communicated the benefits and
risks to doctors and patients in Australia," the company said in an
emailed statement.

It has faced similar lawsuits in the United States, Canada and
Europe. In October 2019 it agreed to pay nearly $117 million to
resolve claims in 41 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Lawsuit Heads to Appeals Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Ayers, writing for Meso Watch, reports that a planned
class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Bausch Health
over alleged contaminants in their talcum powders -- including
asbestos -- is going to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs -- Louisa Gutierrez and
Debbie Luna -- said Feb. 22 his clients are appealing a lower-court
ruling that tossed their case against the manufacturers. The
consumers allege that the manufacturers falsely advertised their
products as being "safe and pure, when they actually contained
hazardous substances such as 'asbestos, asbestiform fibers, lead,
silica, and arsenic,'" according to an earlier court filing.

This intended class-action was dismissed Jan. 22 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, with the judge
concluding that the plaintiffs' allegations lacked needed
specificity under Rule 9B of the Federal Rules of Procedure. Rule
9B sets a "particularity" bar that all cases alleging fraud must
clear before proceeding.

The primary basis for the appeal filed Feb. 19 is over the
interpretation of Rule 9B, according to Jim Treglio of Potter
Handy, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs.

Purity and Safety Disputed
The case centers on ads and marketing claims for baby powder and
shower products made by the two companies. Promotional claims such
as "most pure" and "hypoallergenic and tested with dermatologists"
supposedly misled the plaintiffs into buying these products,
thinking they were "safe and pure," when they allegedly contained
dangerous contaminants such as asbestos. The pair stopped buying
these products after reading an article in December 2018 revealing
talcum powder's links with asbestos, lead, silica, arsenic, and/or
asbestiform fibers.

But most of these allegations never specified which advertisements
and promotions led them to buy the products, thus failing to clear
Rule 9B's particularity hurdle, according to Southern District
Judge Todd Robinson.

"Apart from a few exceptions, [the] plaintiffs do not allege the
specific content of the advertisement they viewed. . . . Instead,
they only provide their own interpretation of the advertisements,"
the judge wrote in his order dismissing the suit.

Wrong Product
Other allegations were likewise dismissed. One pointed to ads
referencing Johnson & Johnson products as being the "#1 Choice for
Hospitals," but as the manufacturer noted, this ad was not
referring to their talcum powder products.

Given that this was the fifth time the plaintiffs had amended their
allegations to address issues with the suit, the judge instead
threw the case out, stating that "it seems unlikely that [the]
plaintiffs can rectify the same fundamental deficiencies that have
plagued their complaints" in past filings. [GN]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Morton v. Leidos Holdings,
Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01911) on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Leidos Holdings, Inc.
("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) securities between May 4,
2020 and February 23, 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 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Leidos 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/leidos-holdings-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 or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce
Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things
that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of
fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international
revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was "concealing
numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive
detection systems at airports and borders."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to
close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the
Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses
for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the
acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million
annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales.
The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst
estimates of $1.083 billion.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to
close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.

On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had
"materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for
the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe
it is validating all the major points of our report."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to
close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos' products suffered
from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection
systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Leidos securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice 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.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210304006175/en/

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Leidos Holdings,
Inc. ("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) investors concerning
the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Leidos 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/leidos-holdings-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.

On February 16, 2021, 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 also alleged that the Company misstated
revenue, citing for example, a $6 million variance between the
third quarter 2020 investor presentation and 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 3.14%,
to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Leidos should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                         About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fagan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Premium Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMILLE FAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.; LM GENERAL
INSURANCE; LM INSURANCE CORPORATION; LM PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
21-829903-C (D. Nev., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to provide and charge a fair and appropriate
insurance premium and to provide premium reduction to its Nevada
automobile insurance policyholders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class have faced
substantial life changes since March 1, 2020 because of the
COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced driving time and miles. The
reduction of driving time and miles driven reduces the risk
associated with insuring the Plaintiff and the class members'
vehicles. However, the Defendant has not taken the appropriate
action to reduce the Plaintiff and the class members' premiums to
accurately reflect the decreased risk.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc. provides insurance services. The Company
offers auto, home, life, and business insurance products and
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451

               -and-

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675


LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK: Satterley Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi Satterley, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. LIEBROCK & LIEBROCK LOGISTICS LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00875-CAP (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2021), is brought for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendant
due to denial of overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours
routinely and with the Defendant's knowledge and behest throughout
their employment with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was not
paid for all hours worked over 40 in a given work-week. The
Plaintiff was paid their hourly rate for 40 hours work, regardless
of how many more hours they had actually worked.

During the entire time that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant,
the Defendant knew that the drivers were working overtime without
being compensated and/or that their time was being shaved by the
company. The Defendant's managers readily observed the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated working overtime. Furthermore, the
Defendant falsified the Plaintiff's time records to indicate she
was on break during times she was working, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began her employment as a driver with the Defendant
on June 25, 2020, and worked until July 18, 2020.

The Defendant employs drivers to provide delivery services to its
third-party clients, such as Amazon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian R. Miller, Esq.
          BARRETT & FARAHANY
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 214-0120
          Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
          Email: adian@justiceatwork.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Defends COI Litigation in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).


Plaintiffs allege that LNL and the company (LNC) breached the terms
of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Subsidiary Still Defends Class Action by TVPX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company (LNL) continues to defend itself
against a putative class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York remains a defendant in a
putative class action initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (LLANY), No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action
that was filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff’s policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

LUCKY 2: FLSA Settlement Class Wins Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA LEWIS, and WILL
MATTHEWS, v. LUCKY 2 LOGISTICS LLC, d/b/a Need It Now Courier, Case
No. 19-cv-323-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered
an order:

   1. finding that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
      and reflects a reasonable compromise of bona fide disputes
      between the parties;

   2. granting the parties' joint motion to approve the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement;

   3. certifying the following collective action settlement
      class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      "all employees who have worked as a delivery driver for
      the Defendant in Milwaukee/Sussex, Wisconsin and Lisle,
      Illinois between May 29, 2017 and April 28, 2019;"

   4. certifying the following Rule 23 settlement class:

      "all employees who have worked as a delivery driver for
      the Defendant in Milwaukee/Sussex, Wisconsin and Lisle,
      Illinois between May 29, 2017 and April 28, 2019;"

   5. appointing Rhonda Lewis and Will Matthews to serve as the
      representative for the certified 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
      Collective Class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class;

   6. appointing the law firm of Forester Haynie PLLC as class
      counsel for the certified 29 U.S.C. §216(b) Collective
      Class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class; and

   7. appointing the notice of class action and collective
      action and proposed settlement.

Lucky 2 is a freight shipping Broker from New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ebKi2m at no extra charge.[CC]

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT
Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the
Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material
misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures
concerning the Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability
of the Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New York.

MAD COW: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mad Cow Memories,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mad Cow Memories, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01790 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Mad Cow Memories, LLC doing business as Armadillo Pepper --
https://www.armadillopepper.com/ -- is a Hot Sauce, BBQ Sauce,
Jerky & Fiery Snack Store specializing in the hottest hot sauces,
award-winning BBQ Sauces & Rubs, Beef and Wild Game Jerky, fiery
snacks and gift baskets.[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


MASHABLE INC: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by June 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL NICKLEN and CRISTINA
MITTERMEIER, v. MASHABLE, INC., et. al, Case 1:20-cv-10300-JSR,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10300-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a case
management order (Rule 23) as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall file a further amended complaint by
      February 24, 2021.

   2. Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by
      March 4, 2021.

   3. The Defendants' response(s) to the operative complaint are
      due March 8, 2021.

   4. The Plaintiffs' response(s) to any motion(s) to dismiss
      are due March 22, 2021.

   5. The Defendants may file reply brief(s) no later than March
      29, 2021.

   6. The Court will hear oral argument on any motions to
      dismiss on April 7, 2021 at 3:45 p.m. Counsel shall
      jointly call Chambers by March 30, 2021 to state their
      preferences regarding whether the proceeding should take
      place in person or remotely.

   7. The Plaintiffs' class certification motion must be filed
      by June 11, 2021.

   8. Any opposition  to plaintiffs' class certification motion
      must be filed by June 25, 2021.

   9. Any reply brief must be filed by July 1, 2021.

  10. The Court will hear oral argument on the class
      certification motion July 8, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. in
      Courtroom 14B.

Mashable is an American entertainment, culture, tech, science and
social good digital media platform, news website and multi-platform
media and entertainment company founded by Pete Cashmore in 2005.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Oh0Nzo at no extra charge.[CC]

MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Hearing Scheduled in March 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that one of the largest class
actions in UK history is set to return to court for a hearing this
month. Millions of consumers in the UK could see payouts of
hundreds of pounds each in an action claiming credit giant
Mastercard charged unlawfully high fees between May 1992 and June
2008. [GN]



MAVEN COALITION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maven Coalition, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Maven Coalition, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01788 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Maven Coalition -- https://maven.io/company/ -- develops an
exclusive network of professionally managed online media channels,
with an underlying technology platform.[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


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as City of Shawnee and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company Inc, Case No. CJ-21-00013
was removed from the District of Pottawatomie County, to the U.S.
District Court for Western District of Oklahoma on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00174-SLP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as 367 Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley C West, Esq.
          Terry W West, Esq.
          THE WEST LAW FIRM
          124 W Highland St
          Shawnee, OK 74801
          Phone: (405) 275-0040
          Fax: (405) 275-0052
          Email: brad@thewestlawfirm.com
                 terry@thewestlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Curtis N Bruehl, Esq.
          THE BRUEHL LAW FIRM PLLC
          14005 N Eastern Ave
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Phone: (405) 657-1221
          Fax: (405) 509-6268
          Email: cbruehl@bruehllaw.com

               - and -

          Harrison C Lujan, Esq.
          FULMER SILL PLLC
          1101 N Broadway Ave, Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Phone: (405) 510-0077
          Fax: (405) 510-0077
          Email: hlujan@fulmersill.com

               - and -

          James D Sill, Esq.
          SILL BEADLES JOHNSON BISCONE & WHITE
          P O Box 3759
          Shawnee, OK 74802
          Phone: (405) 275-0060
          Fax: (405) 275-8419

               - and -

          Matthew J Sill, Esq.
          SILL LAW GROUP PLLC
          1101 N BroadwayM Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Phone: (405) 509-6300
          Fax: (405) 509-6268
          Email: Matt@sill-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey A Curran, Esq.
          Kyle D Evans, Esq.
          Robert G McCampbell, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC
          211 N Robinson Ave, 15th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-5537
          Fax: (405) 235-2875
          Email: jcurran@gablelaw.com
                 kevans@gablelaw.com
                 rmccampbell@gablelaw.com


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: PI Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Green County Fiscal Court, on behalf of Green
County; Breckinridge County Fiscal Court on behalf of Breckinridge
County; Hardin County Fiscal Court on behalf of Hardin County;
Meade County Fiscal Court on behalf of Meade County; Menifee County
Fiscal Court on behalf of Menifee County; Nelson County Fiscal
Court on behalf of Nelson County; Ohio County Fiscal Court on
behalf of Ohio County; Washington County Fiscal Court on behalf of
Washington County, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated Kentucky County Fiscal Courts; City of Henderson, Kentucky
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Kentucky Home
Rule Cities v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey &
Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No. 21-CI-12 was removed from
the Green Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for Western
District of Kentucky on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00035-GNS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew M. Grabhorn
          Michael D. Grabhorn
          GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Phone: (502) 244-9331
          Fax: (502) 244-9334
          Email: a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
                 m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

               - and -

          William D. Nefzger
          BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Phone: (502) 587-2002
          Fax: (502) 587-2006
          Email: will@bccnlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kara M. Stewart, Esq.
          Linsey Walker West
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - Lexington
          100 West Main Street, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 425-1000
          Fax: (859) 425-1099
          Email: kara.stewart@dinsmore.com
                 lwest@dinsmore.com


MDL 2179: Oil Spill Incident Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the oil spill incident by the oil rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the
gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transfers Donovan v. Barbier, et al., C.A. No. 8:20-02598 (M.D.
Fla.) to the Eastern District of Louisiana and with the consent of
that court, assigned it to Judge Carl J. Barbier for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Donovan, who is proceeding pro se, moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the order that conditionally transferred Donovan to the
Eastern District of Louisiana for inclusion in MDL No. 2179.
Defendants Stephen J. Herman, James P. Roy, Kenneth R. Feinberg,
and Patrick A. Juneau oppose the motion. Donovan's motion to vacate
argues that his action focuses on specific alleged misconduct on
the part of defendants, which falls outside the MDL's ambit
including allegations that some of the principal attorneys involved
in the MDL had made misrepresentations inducing complainants to
accept a proposed settlement. These wide-ranging allegations go to
the core of the MDL itself, including the prosecution and
settlement of tens of thousands of claims in the litigation.

Plaintiff in his complaint also challenges various decisions of the
transferee court, including the dismissal of prior action and the
dismissal of three actions (on behalf of plaintiff's clients)
against defendant Feinberg relating to the pre-MDL Gulf Coast
Claims Facility. The panel has ruled that Donovan's issue
constitutes a collateral challenge to the rulings of the transferee
court. Allowing the transferee court to consider this challenge to
the pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 2179 will enhance efficiency,
as otherwise the transferor court would be required to spend time
and energy getting up to speed on a complex and years-long
litigation.

Additionally, Donovan raises various procedural objections to
transfer, both in his briefing on the motion to vacate and in the
subsequent motion for clarification. These uniformly lack merit,
per the panel. Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate
because he has not yet served the summons and complaint on
defendants. Panel ruled that failure to serve one or more
defendants in a potential tag-along action with the complaint and
summons does not preclude transfer of such action under Section
1407 but may constitute grounds for denying the proposed transfer
where prejudice can be shown which the plaintiff has not shown.
Plaintiff suggests that transfer is not appropriate because the
transferor court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants
until they are properly served of which the panel ruled that any
objection to the transferor court’s jurisdiction can be raised in
the transferee court. The panel has decided that the plaintiff's
other procedural objections appear to stem from a misunderstanding
of the conditional transfer process and these procedural objections
to the conditional transfer order lack merit and are based on
misapplication of the Panel Rules.

Actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from the
explosion and fire that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon offshore
drilling rig, and the resulting oil spill.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3v6g3jt


MDL 2741: Panel Denies Remand of N.D. Cal. Week Killer Product Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied Pro se plaintiff Ralph A.
Applegate's motion for Section 1407 remand of two actions in the
Northern District of California:

     -- APPLEGATE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:18-03363 (S.D.
Ohio, C.A. No. 2:18-00045); and

     -- APPLEGATE v. BAYER AG, C.A. No. 3:19-06800 (S.D. Ohio, C.A.
No. 2:19-04264)

Plaintiff in the two actions filed motions to seek return to the
transferor court to obtain a ruling on their motions to remand to
state court, despite the fact that the transferee court has not yet
ruled on these motions and has not issued a suggestion of Section
1407 remand. The panel argues that that the transferee judge, who
is responsible for the day-to-day management of this exceedingly
complex litigation, will address these and other plaintiffs'
motions to remand to state court in due course.

These actions involve common questions of fact arising out of
allegations that Monsanto's and Bayer's herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate that causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Like the plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff in said actions asserts
product liability claims against Monsanto and alleges that exposure
causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and share multiple factual issues
with the cases already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3en9YcP


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Jenkins Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Credit
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Latashia Jenkins, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merchants Credit
Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00874-SDG-JCF (N.D. Ga., March 2,
2021).

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

Merchants Credit Bureau -- https://www.mcbusa.com/ -- is a
full-service credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC–NJ
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 07712
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability (LTD) claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and
members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime
pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40
hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

METLIFE INC: Notice of Proposed Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  the district court
approved notice of the proposed settlement to the classes in City
of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et.
al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

The parties reached an agreement on a class settlement of the case,
and on June 17, 2020, plaintiff filed with the district court a
motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes.


The Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement payment.


On November 24, 2020, the district court approved notice of the
proposed settlement to the classes.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

METLIFE INC: Parchmann Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiff in Parchmann v.
MetLife, Inc., et. al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018), had
filed an appeal on the court's decision granting the company's
motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that
MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board, and its former Chief Financial Officer violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


On January 11, 2021, the court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

MH SUB I: Rattler FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kim Rattler, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated v. MH Sub I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; Demandforce, Inc., a California corporation; Case No.
RG20057640 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
California on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-01492 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands --
https://www.internetbrands.com/ -- is an American new media company
based in El Segundo, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew I. Bobb, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          550 S. Hope St., Ste. 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 532-2116
          Email: mbobb@hunton.com


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Certifies Class Action in Jackson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald L. Jackson, v.
Microchip Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-02914-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered
an order:

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

   2. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of a
      Class consisting of:

      "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Microchip
      Technology, Inc. common stock on a U.S. open market
      during the class period March 2, 2018 through August
      9, 2018, both dates inclusive (the Class Period);"

      Excluded from the Class are defendants in this action,
      Microchip, Steven Sanghi, Ganesh Moorthy, and J. Eric
      Bjornholt, the officers and directors of the Company
      during the Class Period (Excluded D&Os), members of
      the Defendants' and Excluded D&Os' immediate families,
      legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns
      and any entity in which Defendants or the Excluded
      D&Os have or had a controlling interest.

   3. appoinitng Ronald L. Jackson as Class Representative;

   4. appoinitng Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Class Counsel for Class
      Representative and the Class; and

   5. appointing Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. aa
      Liaison Counsel for Class Representative and the Class.

Microchip Technology is a publicly-listed American corporation that
manufactures microcontroller, mixed-signal, analog and Flash-IP
integrated circuits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uM0Yn3 at no extra charge.[CC]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Must File Class Status Bid by March 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMMEL AMANSEC, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-08798-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order that:

   1. the Defendant shall prepare a witness to testify about the
      location of Midland Credit Management, Inc.'s office
      location(s) and the staff employed.

   2. the Plaintiff shall complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
      on or before February 26, 2021.

   3. the Plaintiff shall file his motion for class
      certification on or before March 5, 2021.

MCM provides debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kDA3W1 at no extra charge.[CC]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Clark Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ramon Clark,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital
Group, Inc., DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01941
(C.D. Cal., March 2, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) --
https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
          7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 937-0400
          Fax: (866) 288-9194
          Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Garellek Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
AKIVA GARELLEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00988 (E.D.N.Y., February
23, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter from the Defendant on or about November 2, 2020 seeking to
collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff with Citibank
N.A. Simplicity in which the Plaintiff used the Simplicity funds
for purchases which were primarily for personal, family or
household purposes. The Letter contains a heading at the top of the
letter which states "PRE-LEGAL NOTIFICATION," implying that legal
action is imminent. The letter is deceptive by threatening
litigation if the consumer does not contact the Defendant. When the
Plaintiff did not respond to the initial letter, the Defendant sent
a subsequent letter on February 4, 2020 with a similar threat to
start litigation which clearly shows that Defendant never intended
to commence litigation, the suit adds.

The Defendant allegedly violated Section 1692e(2) by falsely
representing the character and legal status of the debt, and
Section 1692e(5) by falsely threatening legal action when they had
no intention of suing the Plaintiff as even after the deadline to
respond had passed, he had still not been sued on the debt.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501


MIDLAND CREDIT: Oliveros Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE OLIVEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01065
(N.D. Ill., February 24, 2021) brings this complaint as a class
action against the Defendant seeking damages and declaratory relief
for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to creditor Synchrony
Bank primarily for personal, family or household purposes,
specifically use of a Sears Mastercard.

According to the complaint, the alleged debt was purportedly sold
by Synchrony Bank to Defendant Midland Funding, who contracted with
Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
January 28, 2021, Defendant MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter, which states a current balance of $2,405.82, ad provides
three payment options. However, the third option provided is not
adequately explained and resulted in two different possible
interpretations which makes the letter false, deceptive and
misleading, the suit adds.

The Defendants allegedly violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA as the
letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and by
making a false and misleading representation.

As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
demands for statutory and actual damages, litigation costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC are debt
collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


MINNESOTA: Daniel Larsen Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Larsen, et al., v.
State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-00568-DWF-TNL (D.
Minn.), the Plaintiff Dan Larsen asks the Court for an order
certifying this case as class action and appointing class counsel.

The Plaintiff Larsen moves the Court to take emergency action due
to the recent pandemic involving COVID-I9. There are 47 plaintiffs
within this complaint all residing in double-occupancy rooms. The
beds are less than 3 feet apart from one another and the plaintiffs
are unable to social distance as recommended by CDC guidelines.
There has already been 3 death related to COVID-19. The Defendants'
actions demonstrate their inability to protect the class members
when failing plaintiffs opportunities to social distance.

The COVID-I9 pandemic is unprecedented, both as a matter of public
health and as matter of societal disruption, and evidence suggests
that the immediate likelihood infection is only elevated in prisons
especially with the new variants that are mutating. That prisoners
have not yet been infected with COVID-19 is no bar to a finding of
irreparable harm; indeed, as the United States Supreme Court has
clarified, prison officials may be deliberately indifferent "to the
exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the
ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current
symptoms ." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34, 22 (te93).

The Plaintiffs include Joseph Goodwin, Guy Greene, Terry L.
Branson, August Kingbird, Mark Wallace, Austin Black Elk, Michael
Perseke, Chester Grauberger, Danin Dotson, D Ezeray
Roblero-Barrios, Ernesto Longoria, Joseph Delle, Danny Stone,
Matthew Wong, Leslie Tallman, Robert Suddeth, Allen Pyron, Anthony
Garnett, Donald Hill, Paul Knutson, Joshua Brundy, Julian Caprice,
David McGuire, Robert Smith, Shawn Fletcher, David Hamilton,
Jacquard Larkin, Raymond Semler, Shawn Jamison, Roland Brant, Aaron
Hayes, Anthony Green, Kevin Nelson, Richard Fageroos, Max Ortega,
Dan Wilson, Michael Rogers, Jose Gutierrez, Sean Brinkman, Thomas
Bolter, Jeremy Bilder, Brent Nielsen, Christopher Sime, Kevin
Karsjen, Cormell Williamson, Jeremy Asher and all others similarly
situated.

The Defendants include Minnesota Department of Human Services;
Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Minnesota Attorney General's
Office; Minnesota Department of Corrections; Minnesota County's
Health and Human Services -- (i.e.Anoka County Health and Human
Services Director, Ramsey County Health and Human Services
Director, Sherburne County Health and Human Services Director, St.
Louis County Health and Human Services Director, Goodhue County
Health and Human Services Director, Dakota County Health and Human
Services Director, Washington County Health and Human Services
Director et al.) Tim Walz, Governor -- State of Minnesota; Jodi
Harpstead, Commissioner -- Minnesota Department of Human Services;
Nancy Johnston, Executive Director Minnesota Sex Offender Program
-- Minnesota Department of Human Services; Marshall Smith,
Department of Health Systems Chief Executive Officer -- Direct Care
and Treatment -- Minnesota Department of Human Services; Keith
Ellison, Attorney General -- State of Minnesota; Dr. Elizabeth
Peterson, Associate Clinical Director -- Psychological Services
Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Dr. Crystal Leal,
Psychological Services Unit l-C, Minnesota Sex Offender Program;
Peter Puffer, Clinical Director -- Chief Executive Officer III --
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender
Program; Kevin Moser, Operations Director -- Chief Executive
Officer III -- Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota
Sex Offender Program; Paul Schnell, Commissioner -- Minnesota
Department of Corrections; an unknown number of John Does and Jane
Does sued in their individual and official capacities.

A copy of the Plaintiff Larsen motion to certify class dated Feb.
23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
at no extra charge.[CC]

MONEY METALS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Money Metals Exchange
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Money Metals Exchange LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01813 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Money Metals Exchange -- https://www.moneymetals.com/ -- helps
customers switch their paper dollars into the safety of gold &
silver bullion coins & bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against MoneyGram
International, Inc. ("Moneygram" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MGI)
for violations of §§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 June 17,
2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2O8ectX 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. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the
cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was
considered as an unregistered and unlawful security by the SEC. If
the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple, the Company was
likely to lose a significant revenue stream based on market
development fees it received due to the partnership. In fact, the
Company's revenue from these development fees was critical to its
financial results. 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 MoneyGram,
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.

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monster Worldwide,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Monster Worldwide,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01124 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Monster Worldwide Inc. -- https://www.monster.com/ -- operates as a
global online employment solutions company. The Company provides
employment, career management, recruitment and talent management
capabilities solutions to employee, job seekers and employers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MONTREIGN OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Conklin Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY CONKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONTREIGN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC D/B/A
RESORTS WORLD CATSKILLS; EMPIRE RESORTS, INC. D/B/A RESORTS WORLD
CATSKILLS; RAY TERWILLIGER; and MIKE HOOD, Defendants, Case No.
7:21-cv-01595 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Conklin was employed by the Defendants as stewarding
shift manager.

Montreign Operating Company, LLC owns and operates a casino
Monticello, NY operating under the name Resorts World Catskills.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          576 Fifth Avenue, Suite 903
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 457-1699


MOOREGROUP CORP: Porter Seeks to Certify Construction Worker Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA PORTER, SHARKEY
SIMMONS, and EMANUEL COLAJAY RIVERA Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. MOOREGROUP CORPORATION, BALDWIN
HARBOR CONTRACTING INC., JOHN MOORE, GARY MOORE and MARTIN MOORE,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:17-cv-07405-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims for
      unpaid overtime premiums, failure to provide wage notice,
      failure to provide wage statements on behalf of the
      following class:

      "all fireguards, welders, carpenters, laborers and other
      construction employees who worked for the Mooregroup
      Defendants at any time since December 20, 2011";

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives for the
      Class and appointing their counsel, Pelton Graham LLC, as
      Class Counsel; and

   3. authorizing themselves to send Notice of Pendency of Class
      Action in a form to be approved by the Court, and

   4. providing for such other relief as the Court deems just
      and proper.

The Plaintiffs performed a wide range of construction duties for
the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly engaged in consistent,
ongoing timekeeping, scheduling and payroll practices that resulted
in systematic violations of federal and state wage and hour laws,
including unpaid overtime, failure to provide wage notices, and
failure to provide wage statements. Throughout the relevant time
period, the Defendants have paid all fireguards, welders,
carpenters, laborers and other construction workers in the same
manner: failing to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, frequently failing to pay for certain hours
worked, and failing to provide wage notices and wage statements as
required by the NYLL and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Individual Defendants have owned, operated and managed
Mooregroup, which provides construction contracting services.
Mooregroup primarily performs exterior superstructure work, such as
excavation, foundation and concrete work.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qbjqSK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective, and the
putative Class, are:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800

MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Massre Settlement Class Gets Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFRAT MASSRE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULLOOLY,
JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-KAM-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order
that:

   1. the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
      lawsuit, Plaintiff, Settlement Class members, and MJRF.

   2. The following Settlement Class is certified pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

      "All persons to with an address in Kings County, New York
      to whom Defendant sent an initial collection letter
      between August 13, 2018 to August 13, 2019 to collect a
      debt allegedly owed to Lenox Hill Hospital and "all
      medical providers who may be associated with Lenox Hill"
      containing the language "In the event that you do not
      dispute the amount shown above and if you feel that you
      have coverage through an insurance carrier, please
      complete the below form and return to us."

   3. Based on the Parties' stipulations: (A) the Settlement
      Class as defined is sufficiently numerous such that
      joinder is impracticable; (B) common questions of law and
      fact predominate over any questions affecting only
      individual Settlement Class members, and included whether
      or not MJRF violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
      Act, by sending consumers written collection
      communications, which were allegedly overshadowed
      consumers validation rights; (C) the claim of Plaintiff is
      typical of the Settlement Class members' claims; (D) the
      Plaintiff is an appropriate and adequate representative
      for the Class and his attorneys, Ari Marcus and Yitzchak
      Zelman are hereby appointed as Class Counsel; and (E) a
      class action is the superior method for the fair and
      efficient adjudication of the claims of the Settlement
      Class members.

   4. The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the
      Settlement Class.

   5. On February 22, 2021, the Court held a fairness hearing to
      which Settlement Class members, including any with
      objections, were invited.

   6. The Court finds that provisions for notice to the class
      satisfy the requirements due process pursuant to the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the
      United States Constitution and any other applicable law.

   7. The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable,
      and adequate, and hereby finally approves the Agreement
      submitted by the Parties, including the Release and
      payments by MJRF.

      -- MJRF shall make the following payments:

         a. MJRF shall create a class settlement fund of
            $8,215.00 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class
            Administrator shall distribute pro rata among those
            Settlement Class Members who did not exclude
            themselves ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive a
            pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. The
            shares of any of the Settlement Class Members who
            could not be located will be donated as a cy pres
            award to Legal Services of New York, and the award
            will be expressly earmarked for the benefit of New
            York consumers. Checks issued to Claimants will be
            void 60 days from the date of issuance. Any checks
            that have not been cashed by the void date, along
            with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class
            Recovery, will also be donated as a cy pres award to
            Legal Services of New York; and

         b. MJRF shall pay Plaintiff $1,500.00.

   8. The Court finds the Agreement is fair and made in good
      faith.

   9. The Court finds that the work performed by Plaintiff's
      counsel in this successful action was reasonable, and that
      Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to fees and costs under 15
      U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3).

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303F0Ok at no extra charge.[CC]

MULTIPLAN CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
MultiPlan Corporation ("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp.
III. ("Churchill III" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN) between July
12, 2020 and November 10, 2020 (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 MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit MultiPlan Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Churchill III was formed in 2019 as a blank check company, or SPAC,
in October 2019 and completed its IPO on or about February 14,
2020. In July, 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered
into a preliminary agreement to merge with MultiPlan, a New
York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions
provider to the U.S. healthcare industry.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars
in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of
MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened
up to 35% of the Company's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows
by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up
to the Merger were due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for
MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c) MultiPlan was
facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been
forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the
Merger by insurers, causing the Company to cut its take rate by up
to half in some cases; (d) as a result, MultiPlan was set to
continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased
competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the
Merger; (e) as a result, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued
revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through
price acquisitions; (f) as a result, Churchill III investors had
grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a research report titled "MultiPlan: Private
Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab." According to
the report, MultiPlan was in significant financial decline because
of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited from
excessively high healthcare costs.

On this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By
November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock
fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price
at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time
of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 26, 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 MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/multiplancorporation-mpln-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-366/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.

Contact Information

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN; MPLN.WS) ("MultiPlan") f/k/a
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") on behalf of: (1)
those who purchased or acquired MultiPlan securities between July
12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and
(2) all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to
vote on Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris
Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries consummated in
October 2020 (the "Merger").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired MultiPlan
securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 26,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/multiplan-corp-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=multiplan.

Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose
acquisition vehicle. On February 14, 2020, Churchill III completed
its initial public offering, selling 110 million ownership units to
investors for gross proceeds of $1.1 billion (the "IPO"). Pursuant
to the IPO prospectus, Churchill III was required to acquire a
target business with an aggregate fair market value of at least 80%
of the assets held in trust from the IPO proceeds and to do so
within two years of the IPO.

The Class Period commences on July 12, 2020, when Churchill III and
MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist, issued a joint press
release announcing their agreement to combine. The Merger,
initially valued at $5.7 billion, would be funded by the IPO
proceeds as well as billions of dollars in new debt and equity
issuances.

On September 18, 2020, Churchill III issued the proxy statement for
the Merger which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal
(the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated that Churchill had identified
MultiPlan as a potential acquisition target soon after the IPO. On
the basis of the Proxy, on October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to
approve the Merger at a special shareholders meeting. Because of
the Proxy, shareholders were prevented from the fully informed
opportunity to redeem their shares as was their right. The shares
subject to redemption were valued in the Proxy at approximately $10
per share.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan:
Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab", which
was based on extensive non-public sources such as interviews with
former MultiPlan executives and other industry experts, as well as
proprietary analysis. The report revealed, in part, that: (1)
MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client,
UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost Churchill III up to
35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within
two years; (2) MultiPlan was in significant financial decline
because of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited
from excessively high healthcare costs; (3) UnitedHealthcare had
purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard, to reduce its
business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and conflicted
services offered by MultiPlan inhouse; and (4) MultiPlan had
suffered from material, undisclosed pricing pressures that had
caused it to slash the "take rate" it charged customers in half in
some instances and falsely characterized revenue declines as
"idiosyncratic" when in fact they were due to sustained, negative
pricing trends afflicting MultiPlan's business.

Following this news, the price of Churchill III's securities
declined. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III's Class
A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy failed to disclose among other
things that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars
in sales and revenues to Naviguard, which threatened up to 35% of
Churchill III's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022;
(b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the
Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as
represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in
demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c)
MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services
and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead
up to the Merger by insurers; (d) as a result of the foregoing,
MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings
declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics
following the Merger; and (e) as a result of the foregoing,
Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of
MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far
less than represented to investors.

MultiPlan investors may, no later than April 26, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com[GN]

MY HOME: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed by April 27
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeClements v. My Home
Group Real Estate LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00362 (D. Ariz.,), the Hon.
Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation as follows:

   1. The deadline for engaging in good faith settlement talks
      is extended to March 9, 2021; and

   2. The motion for class Certification shall be filed no later
      than April 27, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

My Home Group Real Estate delivers real estate brokerage that
focuses on residential properties, and currently operates multiple
locations in the Arizona area.[CC]

NASAU COUNTY, NY: LaPierre, et al., Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eugene G. LaPierre, Daniel
Padilla, Lenny Taverns, Shawn Trent, Ely Thomas, Jahlil Treasure,
Matthew Martinez, Antinio Eullal, Nercin Chacon, Westley Witts,
Jonathan Scully, Jose Hernandez, et al., v. Sherrif James E.
Dzurenda, Dr. Donna M. Henig, Captain Donahue, Captain Golio, Sgt.
Maronne, C.O. Barrera, C.O. Horan, C.O. Torcha, Grievance
Supervisor John Doe, and Kitchen Supervisor John Doe, Case No.
2:21-cv-00464-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. granting his motion for class certification; and

   2. appointing class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that COVID-19 affects all 700 prisoners and
staff in Nassau County Correctional Center (NCCC). He adds that
hundreds of NCCC Prisoners have been subjected to due process
violations by way of disciplinary policies.

Nassau County is located in the U.S. state of New York. At the time
of the 2010 census, the county's population was 1,339,532,
estimated to have increased to 1,356,924 in 2019.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e4pkmm
at no extra charge.[CC]

NEBULA CARAVEL: Feiteira Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEBULA CARAVEL
ACQUISITION CORP., et al. The case is styled as Ernie Feiteira, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEBULA
CARAVEL ACQUISITION CORP., BRANDON VAN BUREN, ADAM H. CLAMMER,
JAMES H. GREEN JR., DAVID KERKO, DARREN THOMPSON, SCOTT W. WAGNER,
ALEXI A. WELLMAN, Case No. CGC21589825 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., March 1, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Securities/Investments."

Nebula Caravel Acquisition Corp. ("Caravel", NASDAQ: NEBC) is a
newly organized blank check company sponsored by True Wind, a San
Francisco-based, technology-focused private equity firm. Mr.
Clammer and Mr. Greene are the founding partners of True Wind.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          333 East City Avenue, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610.667.6200
          Fax: 610.667.9029
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Aristy-Vercessi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Danis Aristy-Vercessi 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. 21-388, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, February 17, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Danis Aristy-Vercessi 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

NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Chavis-Myrick
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sherry Chavis-Myrick 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. 21-412, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, February 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Sherry Chavis-Myrick 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

NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden.

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

On January 10, 2020, the court in In re Newell Brands Inc.
Securities Litigation entered a dismissal with prejudice after
granting the Company's motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2020, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

On December 1, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.

NORTHERN BREWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern Brewer, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Northern Brewer, LLC,
Northern Brewer Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01821 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2021).

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

Northern Brewer -- https://www.northernbrewer.com/ -- is a home
brewing & winemaking shop offering an extensive selection of
equipment & ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR: Showalter Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Rebelo Showalter, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAIR CORPORATION,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 21CV376845 (Cal., Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., March 2, 2021),
is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Orders of the California
Industrial Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Defendants, jointly
and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate
indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees
by failing to pay all overtime wages owed, provide off-duty meal
breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and pay all wages owed upon separation of employment to
the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Sales Associate
at the Defendants' retail store in California.

Northern California Chair Corporation was a California corporation
that owns and operates retail furniture stores in the State
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


OCINOMLED LTD: Faces Aldape Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL ALDAPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCINOMLED, LTD. d/b/a DELMONICO RESTAURANT;
BALARINI RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ARNO RISTORANTE; FIVE "M" CORP.
d/b/a DK RESTAURANT; 50/50 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a SCALETTA
RISTORANTE, MILAN LICUL, BRANKO TURCINOVIC, OMER GRGUREV, and FERDO
GRGUREV, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01822 (S.D.N.Y., March 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages,
including overtime compensation due to time shaving, unpaid minimum
wage due to invalid tip credit, illegally retained gratuities, and
unpaid spread-of-hours premium in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a busser at Defendants' Delmonico's
Restaurant located at 56 Beaver Street, New York, New York from in
or about January 2018 until on or about April 15, 2019.

Ocinomled, Ltd., doing business as Delmonico Restaurant, is a
restaurant owner and operator located at 56 Beaver Street, New
York, New York.

Balarini Restaurant Corp., doing business as Arno Ristorante, is a
restaurant owner and operator located at 141 West 38th Street, New
York, New York.

Five "M" Corp., doing business as DK Restaurant, is a restaurant
owner and operator located at 207 West 36th Street, New York, New
York.

50/50 Restaurant Corp., doing business as Scaletta Ristorante, is a
restaurant owner and operator located at 50 West 77th Street, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Bid for Initial OK of Morris Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in Morris v. PHH Mortgage
Corp., is pending.

The company is subject to individual lawsuits relating to its Fair
Debt Collection Practices Ac (FDCPA) compliance and putative state
law class actions based on the FDCPA and state laws similar to the
FDCPA.

Ocwen has recently agreed to a settlement in principle of a
putative class action, Morris v. PHH Mortgage Corp., filed in March
2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, alleging that PHH Mortgage Corporation's (PMC's)
practice of charging a fee to borrowers who voluntarily choose to
use certain optional expedited payment options violates the FDCPA
and its state law analogs.

Several similar putative class actions have been filed against PMC
and Ocwen since July 2019. Following mediation, PMC agreed to the
terms of a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in the Morris
matter.

A motion requesting preliminary approval of the settlement was
filed on August 25, 2020.

Ocwen expects final approval of the Morris settlement will resolve
the claims of the substantial majority of the putative class
members described in the other similar cases that Ocwen is
defending.

Several third parties, including a group of State Attorneys
General, have filed papers opposing preliminary approval, and these
third parties could ultimately file objections to the proposed
settlement.

Ocwen cannot guarantee that the proposed settlement will receive
final approval and in the absence of such approval, Ocwen cannot
predict the eventual outcome of the Morris proceeding and similar
putative class actions.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Jury Trial in Weiner Suit to Begin August 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in
Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al.; 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB, has
scheduled a jury trial to begin August 30, 2021.

Ocwen is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of California where the
plaintiffs claim Ocwen marked up fees for property valuations and
title searches in violation of California state law.

Ocwen's motion for summary judgment, filed in June 2019, was denied
in May 2020; however, the court did rule that plaintiff'
recoverable damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the
amount of marked-up fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost
of the valuation that plaintiffs sought.

The court has scheduled a jury trial to begin August 30, 2021.

At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of
such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may had on the
company or its operations.

Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Ocwen said, "If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not
successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results
of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Ocwen may
have affirmative indemnification rights and/or other claims against
third parties related to the allegations in the lawsuit. Although
we may pursue these claims, we cannot currently estimate the
amount, if any, of recoveries from these third parties."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.

OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Ocwen is involved in a TCPA class action that involves claims
against trustees of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities trusts
(RMBS trusts) based on vicarious liability for Ocwen's alleged
non-compliance with the TCPA.

The trustees have sought indemnification from Ocwen based on the
vicarious liability claims. Additional lawsuits have been and may
be filed against us in relation to our TCPA compliance.

Ocwen said, "At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome
of existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed,
the possible loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount
accrued or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our
operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not
successful, our business, reputation, financial condition,
liquidity and results of operations could be materially and
adversely affected."

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

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and the Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OMUSUBI CORPORATION: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omusubi Corporation.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Omusubi Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-01836 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Omusubi -- http://www.omusubi-gonbei.com/en/-- serves traditional,
delicious Japanese rice balls also known as "onigiri", made from
high quality and nutrient-rich Japanese rice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTRAK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 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 Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
OTRK) from November 5, 2020, through February 26, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Ontrak securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Ontrak Shareholder
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) that Ontrak's largest customer
evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's
performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit
rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as
a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's
program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its
contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because this customer accounted for
a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the
customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial
results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective, June 26, 2021

The Company stated that this customer evaluated Ontrak on a
provider basis and [a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings. The Company also stated that the coaching
model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to
close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 3, 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 Ontrak securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ontrakinc-otrk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-373/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.

Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

ONTRAK INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak") (NASDAQ: OTRK) in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Ontrak between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
investors under the federal securities laws.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. The Company stated that its largest customer had terminated
its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The Company also
stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis"
and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based
on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical
visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost
savings." The Company further stated that "the coaching model which
Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to
be less relevant to their performance metrics." On this news, the
Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to close at
$31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company
on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on
achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical
outcomes or medical cost savings; (ii) that, as a result, Ontrak's
largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective
and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak;
(iii) that, because this customer accounted for a significant
portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would
have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv)
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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ontrak
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 3,
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]

ONTRAK INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OTRK) to determine whether the Company engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

On March 3, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States
District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of Ontrak
investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired Ontrak securities
between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Ontrak 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.

The Ontrak Defendants, according to the class action complaint,
failed to disclose to investors (1) that Ontrak's largest customer
evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's
performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit
rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) as a
result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's
program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its
contract with Ontrak; (3) because this customer accounted for a
significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the
customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial
results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Ontrak
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, OTRK SECURITIES
DURING THE CLASS PERIOD 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.

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

ONTRAK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Ontrak, Inc.
("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) securities from November
5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 3, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing
preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The
Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching
model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or
approximately 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021,
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 Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company
on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on
achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical
outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's
largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective
and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak;
(3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion
of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an
outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ontrak securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

ORMAT TECH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Ormat 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/ormat-technologies-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.

On March 1, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report entitled "Ormat: Dirty Dealings in 'Clean'
Energy." According to the report, the Company "has engaged in what
we believe to be widespread and systematic acts of intentional
corruption," adding that it "expect[s] the blowback to these
revelations to be severe, threatening Ormat's contracts in its most
lucrative markets." The report alleges that Hindenburg "uncovered
evidence tying Ormat to corruption with senior government
officials," and "direct evidence tying Ormat to corruption with
senior Guatemalan government officials" further noting "Ormat paid
contractors in Kenya tied to corrupt government officials."

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.00, or 1.1%, to close at
$84.67 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The same day, after the market closed, Ormat responded to the
report and acknowledged that "[t]he Company is aware of claims
being investigated in Israel regarding Ravit Barniv, an Ormat Board
member, and Hezi Kattan, the Company's General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer." Though the "claims involve Ms. Barniv's and
Mr. Kattan's work at another company, prior to joining Ormat," the
Company announced that it would "transfer the responsibility for
the Company's compliance function to other members of the Ormat
management team until these issues are resolved."

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.68, or nearly 2%, to
close at $82.99 per share on March 2, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Ormat should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

ORTLAND GENERAL: Consolidated Securities Suit in Oregon Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Portland General Electric Company Securities
Litigation.

During September and October 2020, three putative class action
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523, Cannataro v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583, and Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General
Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786.

Two of these actions were filed on behalf of purported purchasers
of PGE stock between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020; a third
action was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock
between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020.

During the fourth quarter of 2020, the plaintiff in Hessel
voluntarily dismissed his case and the court consolidated Cannataro
and PERS of Mississippi into a single case captioned In re Portland
General Electric Company Securities Litigation and appointed Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi lead plaintiff.

On January 11, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE's alleged lack of
sufficient internal controls and risks associated with PGE's
trading activity in wholesale electric markets, purportedly on
behalf of purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and
August 24, 2020.

The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages
of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' costs,
and attorneys' and expert fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Since
the lawsuit is in early stages, the Company is unable to predict
outcomes or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.

P.F. CHANG: 9th Circuit Claws Back "Krab Mix" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Weinstein, Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate and Alyson Tocicki on
at proskaueronadvertising.com reports that a split Ninth Circuit
panel recently reversed the dismissal of claims against P.F.
Chang's regarding the chain's use of the term "krab mix" in the
ingredients list for certain sushi rolls. Kang v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).

Plaintiff claimed he purchased P.F. Chang's "krab mix" sushi rolls
because the term "krab mix" led him to believe the rolls contained
at least some real crab meat, when in fact they contained none.
P.F. Chang's countered that reasonable consumers would be tipped
off by the fanciful spelling of "krab," as well as the fact that
other items on the same page of the P.F. Chang's menu listed "crab"
(spelled correctly) in their ingredients. Accordingly, P.F. Chang's
argued, a consumer confronted with both "crab" and "krab mix" on
the same page would not be misled into believing they are the same.
The district court agreed, and dismissed plaintiff's claims as
implausible on their face. In doing so, the court analogized to a
prior decision finding no reasonable consumer would be misled into
believing "Froot Loops" contain "Fruit." McKinnis v. Kellogg, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96106 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

The Ninth Circuit reversed, relying primarily on Williams v. Gerber
Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008). In Williams, the
defendant sold products labeled "Fruit Juice Snacks" with images of
fruits on the front label. The ingredients list on the side of the
box disclosed that the product did not actually contain juice from
any fruits pictured on the packaging. The Williams Court found the
defendant could not immunize itself against prominent, misleading
front-label claims by disclosing the truth about the product's
ingredients elsewhere. The majority held the same to be true in
this case -- just as the Williams court believed a consumer might
not look beyond representations on the front of a box to discover
an ingredients list displayed elsewhere on the packaging, the
majority here concluded a P.F. Chang's customer might not look
beyond the phrase "krab mix" to discover the term "crab" used
elsewhere on the same menu.

In a persuasive dissent, Judge Bennett criticized the majority for
failing to give the ordinary California consumer enough -- or any
-- credit. Importantly, Judge Bennett pointed out that the standard
for misrepresentation is not whether the "least sophisticated" or
"most gullible" consumer would be misled. According to Judge
Bennett, reasonable consumers in the food industry are prudent
enough to know that fanciful spellings materially change the
meaning of a word, since this kind of advertising is now
commonplace in the food industry. For instance, "cavi-art" is not
caviar, "Froot Loops" are not fruit, and "tofurky" is not turkey.
Judge Bennett concluded "nothing about ‘krab mix' suggests that
the sushi rolls will contain real crab," and "wishful thinking on
the plaintiff's part" does not make for a plausible claim. Judge
Bennett also reiterated the district court's finding that the
context in which "krab mix" appeared (i.e., in close proximity to
other items labeled "crab") should clue consumers in.

P.F. Chang's joins the ranks of Williams and Bell v. Publix Super
Markets, 982 F.3d 468 (2020) as decisions likely to be embraced by
the advertising class action plaintiffs' bar. However, this
decision will not change the status quo that it is both common and
entirely appropriate for courts to dismiss as a matter of law
complaints alleging unreasonable understandings of advertising
claims which are cured by disclosures elsewhere on the advertising.
There are several recent and notable decisions from the Second and
Ninth Circuits recognizing this principle. For example:

In Fink v. Time Warner, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiffs' false advertising complaint, acknowledging that it
is "well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that
an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a
reasonable consumer," and that "the presence of a disclaimer or
similar clarifying language may defeat a claim of deception." 714
F.3d 739, 741-42 (2d Cir. 2013).
In Jessani v. Monini North America, the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that
reasonable consumers would take away the false message that a
flavored olive oil truthfully described as "truffle flavored"
contains real truffles. 744 F. App'x 18 (2d Cir. 2018). The Court
agreed with Monini, who Proskauer represented, that this was simply
not a reasonable takeaway in the overall context of its label, and
given the absence of truffles on the ingredient list.
In Ebner v. Fresh, the Ninth Circuit explained that Williams merely
"stands for the proposition that if the defendant commits an act of
deception, the presence of fine print revealing the truth is
insufficient to dispel that deception." 838 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir.
2016) (emphasis in original). In Ebner, the Ninth Circuit found it
was not plausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived as to
how much lip balm the defendant's product contained where the label
accurately stated its net weight.
In Razo v. Ashley Furniture Industries, the Ninth Circuit held that
the "district court properly granted summary judgment on Razo's
claims because a reasonable consumer would have read the
unambiguous and truthful disclosures placed on the front and back
of Ashley's DuraBlend hangtag." 782 Fed. Appx. 632, 633 (9th Cir.
2019).

In numerous recent lawsuits against confection makers, federal
district courts have dismissed claims alleging defendants'
"white"-labeled sugary goods deceived reasonable consumers into
thinking the products contain white chocolate, when they do not. In
dismissing these claims, courts noted that the ingredients list on
the packaging clearly did not include any mention of "white
chocolate." See our prior coverage of such cases involving Nestle
Tollhouse and Ghirardelli.

Further, the dissent warns against the inevitable harm that stems
from allowing such implausible claims to proceed further down the
litigation path -- the cost of defending these claims is not
inconsequential, and is ultimately passed onto consumers. It
remains to be seen if the Ninth Circuit will come to better
appreciate this fact and reverse course as this line of decisions
spawns increasing numbers of food labeling suits. [GN]

PANINI AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panini America, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Panini America, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01792 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Panini America, Inc. -- https://www.paniniamerica.net/ -- provides
commercial printing services. The Company offers products such as
stickers, trading cards, albums, sports collectibles, and certified
authentic memorabilia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal



PAYWARD INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payward, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Payward, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01816
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Payward, Inc. -- https://www.kraken.com/ -- provides digital
currency exchange and trading platform. The Company offers trading
tools, user interface, technical security, and regulatory
compliance to traders in digital currencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PEARL LAW: Fields Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Law Offices,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shawndia Fields, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pearl Law Offices,
LLC, First Federal Credit Control, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00497 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2021).

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

Pearl Law Offices, LLC -- https://attorneypearl.com/ -- is a law
firm in Northfield, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
          23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 800-5529
          Fax: (216) 514-4987
          Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


PEPE DISPLAYS: Faces Juarez Suit Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPE DISPLAYS, INC., and JOSE C. AMPUERO,
individually and as officer, director, and/or principal of Pepe
Displays, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00985 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 23, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
seeking damages and other legal and equitable relief against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a carpenter who
performed work for the Defendants' clientele throughout New York
City.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' carpenters typically
worked between 40 and 65 hours per week and frequently in excess of
10 hours per workday, including the Plaintiff. However, they were
solely paid a flat rate for all hours they worked. The Defendants
allegedly failed to pay the overtime premium of one and one-half
times their hourly rate for all hours they worked in excess of 40
per workweek. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated carpenters with the wage
statements as required by the WTPA with each paycheck they
received, the suit adds.

Pepe Displays, Inc. is a privately owned business organized that
provides construction services. Jose C. Ampuero, as an officer of
the Corporate Defendant, had the ability to set terms and
conditions of their employees such as their rate of pay, work
schedule, and assignments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Vagnini, Esq.
          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Tel: (516) 203-7180
          Fax: (516) 706-0248


PERSOLVE RECOVERIES: Faces Sinkfield FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Recoveries,
LLC. The case is captioned as Allecia Sinkfield v. Persolve
Recoveries, LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80338-RKA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16,
2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act arising from consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Roy K. Altman.

Persolve is a full service legal recovery and collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy.
          Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: matthew@fight13.com

               - and -

          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

PERSONAL TOUCH: Underpays Home Health Aides, Brown Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPHINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE OF LONG ISLAND,
INC., ROBERT CAIONE and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01139 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and the New York Health Care Worker Wage Parity
Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated home health aides the required minimum wages and overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
failing to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health
aide/maid for various customers in Nassau County, New York from
about June 1, 2013 until about November 2, 2018.

Personal Touch Home Care of Long Island, Inc. is a home care
provider with its principal place of business at 60 Hempstead Ave.,
Suite 215, West Hempstead, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         William C. Rand, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
         501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 286-1425
         Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
         E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

PIER 1 IMPORTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pier 1 Imports
Online, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pier 1 Imports
Online, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01123 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Pier 1 -- https://www.pier1.com/ -- offers inspiring home decor,
rugs, furniture, dining room sets, Papasan chairs & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


PORRIDGE LLC: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORRIDGE, LLC d/b/a THE ODELLS SHOP; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01663 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 23, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Porridge, LLC, d/b/a The Odells Shop, is engaged in selling apparel
and fashion products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Dismissal of Trojan Class Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs motion for reconsidaration on
the Court's decision affirming the Marion County Circuit's decision
of dismissal.

In 1993, the company (PGE) closed Trojan and sought full recovery
of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate
case filing with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment.

In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against
PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i)
Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and
ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County
Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits sought damages totaling
$260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's
inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its
investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded
that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any,
remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions
or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that
the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010.
Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of
Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit
Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and
heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted
the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims
by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit
Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.

In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that
affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. On December 30, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of
Appeals denied on February 4, 2020.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the January 2020 Court order dismissing their consolidated
securities class action is still pending.

ProShare Capital Management LLC (the Sponsor) and ProShares Trust
II are named as defendants in the following purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on the following dates: (i) on January 29,
2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.; (ii) on
February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et
al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v. ProShares
Trust II, et al.

The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and
Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sections
229.303(a)(3)(ii)), 229.105, by issuing untrue statements of
material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.

Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others.

The Court consolidated the three actions under the caption In re
ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On January 3, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered the case
closed. On January 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trust and Sponsor will continue to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome
of this action. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may
incur expenses in defending against such claims.

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.

PROSHARES TRUST II: Di Scala Purported Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that ProShare Capital
Management LLC (the "Sponsor"), ProShares Trust II and ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, continue to defend themselves from a
purported class action suit entitled, Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.

On July 28, 2020, ProShare Capital Management LLC, ProShares Trust
II and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO"), a series of the
Trust, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, captioned Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude
Oil, et al.

The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 as well as Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17
C.F.R. Sections 229.303(a)(3)(ii)), 229.105, by issuing untrue
statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the
prospectus for UCO, and allegedly failing to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the action. The Court has appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

The Court also has entered a scheduling order for filing an amended
complaint and motion to dismiss briefing. The Trust and the Sponsor
intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

ProShares said, "The defendants cannot predict the outcome of this
lawsuit. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in the
Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil may incur expenses in defending against such
lawsuit."

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Cho Suit v. PICA Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Cho v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., is pending.

In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Cho v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in
the Prudential Employee Savings Plan and (i) alleges that
Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the
administration, management and operation of the Plan, including
engaging in prohibited transactions; and (ii) seeks declaratory,
injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In September 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
and added as individual defendants certain PFI officers and current
and former members of the Company's Administrative Committee and
Investment Oversight Committee.

In December 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in Behfarin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court in
Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, issued an order:
(i) granting plaintiffs' motion for certification of the settlement
class; (ii) approving the proposed nationwide class settlement
agreement; (iii) approving the class notice; (iv) awarding
attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs and a reduced incentive
award to Behfarin; and (v) dismissing the action with prejudice,
but maintaining jurisdiction over the settlement.

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard
Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal
life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are
inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.

The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief.

In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

In October 2019, plaintiff filed: (1) the First Amended Complaint
adding Prudential Insurance Company of America and Pruco Life
Insurance Company of New Jersey as defendants; and (2) a motion
seeking preliminary certification of a settlement class,
appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. In
November 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

In June 2020, the court issued an order: (i) granting plaintiffs'
motion for certification of the settlement class; (ii) approving
the proposed nationwide class settlement agreement; (iii) approving
the class notice; (iv) awarding attorneys' fees and costs to
plaintiffs and a reduced incentive award to Behfarin; and (v)
dismissing the action with prejudice, but maintaining jurisdiction
over the settlement.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Facing Stone Putative Class Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled,  Doyle C. Stone v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance Company

In February 2021, a putative class action complaint entitled Doyle
C. Stone v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Pruco Life Insurance
Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. and
Pruco Life Insurance Company for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, based on: (i) the
Company’s alleged deficient identification, notification and
payment practices for retirement plan participants in transferred
group retirement, annuity and insurance plans; and (ii) improper
transfer of Plan Participant funds to its own accounts. The
putative class includes all Plan Participants from January 2015 to
the present.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Appeals Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the putative class action suit entitled, City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Charles F.
Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  

In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled City
of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.


The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations
against PFI, and Charles Lowrey, PFI's chief executive officer, and
Kenneth Tanji, PFI's chief financial officer, individually, and
alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and
(iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating
mortality experience.

The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock
between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019. In March 2020, the
court issued an order consolidating this action with Donald P.
Crawford v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential
Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. In June 2020, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint and added Robert M. Falzon, PFI's vice
chairman, as an individual defendant.

In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In December 2020, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice
and plaintiff subsequently filed, in January 2021, a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.

PRUDENTIAL LIFE: Crawford Suit Consolidated with Warren Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that putative class
action suit entitled, David P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial,
Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, has been with City of Warren
v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential Financial, Inc.
Securities Litigation. Case updates are consolidated with the City
of Warren action.

In January 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled David
P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth
Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations
against PFI, and Charles Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, individually,
and alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and
(iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating
mortality experience.

The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock
between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.

In March 2020, the court issued an order consolidating this action
with City of Warren v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re
Prudential Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. Case updates are
consolidated with the City of Warren action.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.

RALPH LAUREN: Martinez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Genesis Martinez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, Case
No. 21-L-00005 was removed from the Circuit Court of Kane County,
16th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01181 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ralph Lauren Corporation -- https://corporate.ralphlauren.com/ --
is an American fashion company producing products ranging from the
mid-range to the luxury segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RRC) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and
docketed under 21-cv-00301, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Range Resources
common stock between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 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 Range Resources securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 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.

Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its
subsidiary, Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC, engage in the
exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil
properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly
owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian
region, including Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania regulations,
Range Resources must apply for the correct designation of the
status of its wells with local regulators. These status
designations include, for example, "active," "inactive," or
"abandoned."

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP")
enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a
well's status. According to the DEP, "inactive" wells must be
viable for future use within a certain time frame. If a well is not
viable for future use within that time frame, then the well should
be classified as "abandoned" and must be plugged. Improperly
classified wells present serious health, safety, and environmental
concerns, further highlighting the need for the correct designation
of a well's status.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the
status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially
decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to
plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a
DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January
2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the
DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On February 10, 2021, shortly before the close of the trading
session, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range
Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on
January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had
begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting
and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in
Fayette County, Pennsylvania -- specifically concerning whether the
well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the
purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for
information on other wells the Company had requested to designate
as inactive, the DEP found that "between Tuesday, July 16, 2013,
and Monday, October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional
wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and
that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12
months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for
inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no
production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be
plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range
Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency
identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue.

The following day, as the market fully digested the significance of
the DEP's announcement, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to
close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 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]

RBC DOMINION: Banks, Insurance Firms Owe Employee Vacation Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Seglins at cbc.ca reports that when Leigh Cunningham of
Winnipeg left her 26-year career as an investment adviser with RBC
Dominion Securities, she did some math and realized that for
decades she hadn't been receiving six per cent vacation pay on her
full income.

Cunningham has launched a proposed $800-million class-action
lawsuit on behalf of thousands of advisers.

She alleges that RBC, which last week reported soaring profits, has
systematically short-changed workers by failing to provide proper
vacation pay to advisers whose compensation is based mostly on
commissions and bonuses.

"It's just wrong," Cunningham told CBC News. "We are helping as
employees to create that profit."

Cunningham's lawsuit was served to RBC in December but not made
public until now.

It is one of five proposed class actions launched against banks and
insurance companies since early 2019 seeking a total of $1.2
billion for vacation pay that's allegedly owed current and former
employees.

The allegations include that employers would calculate vacation pay
based only on an employee's base salary, without including
commissions and bonuses that can make up a large portion of a
worker's compensation.

If successful, experts say these suits could open the floodgates on
major employers that fail to pay salespeople and commissioned staff
in accordance with various provincial and territorial employment
standards laws across Canada.

'I need my money. Plain and simple.'
RBC, named in three of the five proposed class actions, declined to
discuss specifics, but did issue a statement to CBC News.

"RBC takes pride in ensuring that everyone who works at any RBC
company is fairly compensated," RBC Insurance communications
director Greg Skinner wrote in an email.

"The policies that apply to the employees involved in the action
state that their compensation includes vacation pay and statutory
holiday pay."

Maureen Barrett of Brampton, Ont., resigned her position as an
insurance salesperson for RBC in 2017, after almost a decade with
the company.

She, too, is now a lead plaintiff, but in a different proposed
class-action lawsuit seeking $80 million from RBC Insurance on
behalf of its salespeople.

"I need my money, plain and simple," Barrett told CBC News.
"There's no bells and whistles around it, you owe me my money. I've
worked for it."

Barrett's claim alleges she only ever received vacation pay on her
base salary of $37,500 and that RBC Insurance systemically failed
to include in the calculation the commissions and performance
bonuses that routinely made up a large share of her compensation.

"We need to make sure that this is rectified for those who are
taken advantage of," she said. "That's how I feel. When this
happened, when I found out that this took place, I felt as if I was
taken advantage of."

Barrett says she moved to a new job as a salesperson with a smaller
company, and was paid the proper amount of vacation pay from the
start.

The Bank of Montreal is facing a similar class action launched by
former BMO private wealth adviser Paul Cheetham in Vancouver.

BMO declined to comment on the suit.

Allstate Insurance is also facing a $160-million claim launched by
home and auto insurance salesperson Sung Taek Lee in Toronto.

It said the claim is "completely without merit" and that it will
defend its case "in due course."

"Allstate compensates its employees in full compliance with all
provincial employment legislation," it said in a statement.

The class actions have yet to be certified by the courts, and so
none of the allegations have been tested by a judge or jury.

A wake-up call for major employers, lawyer says
The class actions on behalf of large groups of employees have
emerged following recent court decisions that upheld individual
employees' rights to outstanding vacation pay as part of severance
packages.

Toronto investment banker David Bain sued his former employer, UBS
Securities Canada Inc., after he lost his job in 2013 when the
company shut down part of its Canadian operations.

In 2018, Ontario's Court of Appeal upheld his right to $87,472 in
vacation pay for his years of service, calculated as a percentage
of his base salary as well as his bonuses.

These kinds of rulings have been a wake-up call for major
employers, according to Toronto lawyer James Heeney, who
specializes in employment law and is not involved in any of the
class-action lawsuits.

"Many companies have caught up and changed the way that they pay
people to be compliant, but many, many haven't," he told CBC News.

He says employment standards across Canada vary by province and by
profession and need to be modernized.

He suspects the $1.2 billion worth of lawsuits and class actions
over vacation pay could be just the beginning.

"If you look across the country, there's at least hundreds of
millions of dollars of liability, if not more, because there are
just so many entities that have not caught up," he said.

While the five proposed class actions have yet to be given a green
light, lawyers for Leigh Cunningham of Winnipeg hope to be in court
later this year to certify the action on behalf of RBC investment
advisers.

She acknowledges advisers are usually well paid, but says she
worked hard for her clients and is entitled to what is provided for
under the law.

"If the law states that an investment adviser is entitled to
receive a holiday and vacation pay, why should I be penalized?" she
said.

"If you look at six per cent over 21 years . . . RBC Dominion
Securities has really had the use of that six per cent of mine, my
money."[GN]

RBC DOMINION: Faces $800M Class Suit Over Vacation & Holiday Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danton Unger at ctvnews.ca reports that a former investment advisor
of RBC Dominion Securities has launched an $800 million
class-action lawsuit against her former employer, alleging it has
been failing or refusing to pay investment advisors vacation and
holiday pay.

Leigh Cunningham had worked as an investment advisor for RBC
Dominion Securities for 26 years at its Winnipeg office. She said
after leaving the company in 2017, she was going over pay stubs and
realized something wasn't adding up.

Cunningham is the lead and currently sole plaintiff of a
class-action lawsuit against RBC Dominion Securities alleging the
company failed to pay class member's vacation and holiday pay based
on their total wages, including commissions.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been tested
in court

"I don't understand how this could have happened," Cunningham said
during a news conference in Winnipeg on Thursday.

"When I started to investigate this, it was like I stepped on a
rake – I really felt betrayed."

The class-action statement of claim - which was filed in Ontario's
Superior Court of Justice in July 2020 - alleges that RBC Dominion
Securities never recorded or told class members what percentage of
their wages were on account of vacation and holiday pay.

It alleges RBC Dominion Securities misrepresented that vacation and
holiday pay was properly included and accounted for in the
calculation of their commissions.

"If it was included in my compensation, then can you please prove
it?" Cunningham said.

The statement of claim said Employment Standards Legislation
requires employers to pay vacation and holiday pay on an employee's
total wages including commissions, in addition to their regular
wages.

Cunningham said in Manitoba, employees are entitled to at least two
weeks of vacation and vacation pay of four per cent of their gross
wages after one year of employment. After five years, it rises to
three weeks, and the pay increases to six per cent of gross wages.

The class action is seeking $750 million in general damages, along
with $50 million in punitive damages.

A spokesperson from RBC Dominion Securities told CTV News it has
not filed a statement of defence as the class action has not been
certified.

"RBC takes pride in ensuring that everyone who works at any RBC
company is fairly compensated," the spokesperson told CTV News in
an email. "The policies that apply to the employees involved in the
action state that their compensation includes vacation pay and
statutory holiday pay."

The RBC Dominion Securities spokesperson said they cannot comment
further while the matters are before the court.  [GN]

REDWOOD LOGISTICS: Kavanagh Asserts Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kavanagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Redwood Logistics, LLC,, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00715, (N.D. Ill., February 8, 2021), seeks to recover
minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant is a logistics company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois
where Kavanagh was hired as a Carrier Sales Representative,
identifying, sourcing and developing relationships with motor
carriers. He claims to be misclassified as a salaried employee thus
denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             mtresnowski@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             kaburgy@nicholllaw.com


RICMARO HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. Amratlal N. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. and
Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; Bhanu A. Patel, Trustee of the
Amratlal N. and Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; and Ricmaro
Hospitality, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 21 ST CV
06193 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of
lodging regarding lack of information provided on the hotel's
reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff to determine if
there are rooms that would work for him in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip
in April of 2021 to the Los Angeles California, area. He chose The
Lexmar - Dodger Stadium/Hollywood located at 811 N. 17 Alvarado
St., Los Angeles, California because this hotel was at a desirable
price and location. Due to the Plaintiff's condition, he is unable
to, or seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate,
reach objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from
his chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.

Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to
be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so
that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently
and safely. On January 23, 2021, while sitting bodily in
California, Plaintiff went to The Lexma -- Dodger Stadium/Hollywood
reservation Website http://www.thelexmar.com/seeking to book an
accessible room at the location.

The Website reservation system is owned and operated by the
Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Hollywood Inn
Express South. Plaintiff found that there was insufficient
information about the accessible features in the "accessible rooms"
at the Hotel to permit him to assess independently whether a given
hotel room would work for him.

The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair
to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate
that transfer. But the Hotel reservation Website does not provide
any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible
guestroom toilets. This is critical information for him, he adds.

Defendants Amratlal N. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal N. and Bhanu
A. Patel 2006 Family Trust; Bhanu A. Patel, Trustee of the Amratlal
N. And Bhanu A. Patel 2006 Family Trust own The Lexmar -- Dodger
Stadium/Hollywood located at 811 N. Alvarado St., Los Angeles,
California. The Defendant Ricmaro Hospitality, Inc., a California
Corporation operates the Hotel currently and at 11 all times
relevant to this complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RLJ II: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. RLJ II -- EM Downey, LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21NWCV00089 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated challenging the reservation
policies and practices of a place of lodging regarding lack of
information provided on the hotel's reservation Website that would
permit the plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would
work for him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act
and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip
in March of 2021 to the Downey, California, area. He chose the
Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey located at 8425
Firestone Blvd., Downey, California because this hotel was at a
desirable price and location. Due to the Plaintiff’s condition,
he is unable to, or seriously challenged in his ability to, stand,
ambulate, reach objects mounted at heights above his shoulders,
transfer from his chair to other equipment, and maneuver around
fixed objects.

Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to
be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so
that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently
and safely. On January 23, 2021, while sitting bodily in
California, Plaintiff went to the Embassy Suites by Hilton Los
Angeles Downey reservation Website at
https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/laxdwes-embassy-suites-los-angeles-downey/
seeking to book an accessible room at the location.

The Website reservation system is owned and operated by the
Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Embassy Suites by
Hilton Los Angeles Downey.

The Plaintiff found that there was insufficient information about
the accessible features in the "accessible rooms" at the Hotel to
permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for him.

The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair
to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate
that transfer. But the Hotel reservation website does not provide
any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible
guestroom toilets. This is critical information for him, he adds.

Defendant RLJ II - EM Downey, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership
owns and operates the Embassy Suites by Hilton Los Angeles Downey
located at 8425 Firestone Blvd., Downey, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Norvell Suit Removed to D. Oregon
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raymond Norvell, Mike Vallejo, David Segovia,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Robinhood Markets, Inc., Case No. 21cv03338 was removed from the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for
District of Oregon on March 2, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00319-YY to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. -- https://robinhood.com/ -- is an American
financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California,
known for offering commission-free trades of stocks and
exchange-traded funds via a mobile app introduced in March
2015.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Fuller
          OLSENDAINES
          US Bancorp Tower
          111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 222-2000
          Fax: (503) 362-1375
          Email: Michael@UnderdogLawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel A. Mullin
          Stephen H. Galloway
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 S.W. Ninth Ave., Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Phone: (503) 294-9665
          Fax: (503) 220-2480
          Email: joel.mullin@stoel.com
                 shgalloway@stoel.com


ROHRER CORPORATION: Illegally Stored Fingerprints, Bryer Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC BRYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROHRER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2021L000269 (Ill. 18th Jud. Ct., Dupage Cty., March 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by failing
to properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used;
failing to provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated individuals' fingerprints; failing to receive a
written release from them to collect, store, disseminate or
otherwise use their fingerprints; and failing to obtain consent
from them to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to a third
party.

Rohrer Corporation is a consumer packaging provider located in
Wadsworth, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
         Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
         PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
         818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
         St. Louis, MO 63104
         Telephone: (314) 833-4825
         E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 plesko@peifferwolf.com

RUSHMORE LOAN: August 20 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Duncan v. Rushmore
Loan Management Services, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-01524 (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff Kenneth Duncan and Defendant Rushmore Loan Management
Services ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time up to and including, August 20, 2021, within which to file its
Motion for Class Certification and award any further relief deemed
just and proper.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

Rushmore provides financial services. The Company offers performing
and non-performing residential mortgage loans.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kJw5Lr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
          STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq.
          Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 Southeast 6 th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com;
                  kslaven@zpllp.com
                  mperez@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          NEWHART LEGAL, P.A.
          14611Southern Blvd. Suite 1351
          Loxahatchee, FL 33470
          Telephone: (561) 331-1806
          Facsimile: (561) 473-2946
          E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P. Heller, Esq.
          Marc J. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Celia C. Falzone, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Las Olas Centre II
          350 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1600
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 463-2700
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2224
          E-Mail: william.heller@akerman.com
                  marc.gottlieb@akerman.com
                  celia.falzone@akerman.com

RUSHMORE LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 20
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duncan v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-01524 (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly entered an endorsed
order granting joint second motion for extension of time to file
motion for class certification.

The time for filing a motion for class certification is extended to
August 20, 2021, says Judge kelly.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

Rushmore provides financial services. The Company offers performing
and non-performing residential mortgage loans.[CC]


RYDER SYSTEM: Bid to Dismiss Key West Policy Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss filed in
the putative class action suit entitled, Key West Policy & Fire
Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al., is pending.

On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive,
was commenced against Ryder and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, captioned Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder
System, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs.

On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.


On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the
case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on
the motion to dismiss is expected to be completed March 2021.

Ryder System, Inc., commonly known as Ryder, is an American
provider of transportation and supply chain management products,
and is especially known for its fleet of rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
dedicated contracted carriage. The company is based in Miami,
Florida.

SD BULLION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SD Bullion, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SD Bullion, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01793 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

SD Bullion -- https://sdbullion.com/ -- deals with precious metals.
It sells gold, silver, and platinum bullion in the form of coins
and bars at lower prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Papers Related to Class Cert. Bid Due March 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY INFANTINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. SEALAND
CONTRACTORS, CORP., Case No. 6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. Any responding papers submitted in connection with this
      motion must be filed and served on or before March 15,
      2021, with a courtesy copy of such filing to be provided
      to the Court;

   2. Since the moving party has stated, pursuant to Western
      District of New York Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
      7(a)(1), in the notice of motion that the moving party
      intends to file and serve reply papers, such papers must
      be filed and served on or before March 29, 2021, with a
      courtesy copy of such filing to be provided to the Court;
      and

   3. The time for service and the content of papers must be in
      accordance with Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 7
      and 5.1 (papers not in compliance will not be considered);
      and

   4. Oral argument will be heard before the undersigned on
      April 13, 2021, at 3:00 p.m., at 2310 United States
      Courthouse, 100 State Street, Rochester, New York

A motion to certify class having been filed on February 19, 2021,
by plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rnYQ2E at no extra charge.[CC]

SILFEX INC: Underpays Manufacturing Employees, Lopez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUDY LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SILFEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00061-TMR
(S.D. Ohio, February 23, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees'
overtime compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant between October 2019 and
February 2021 as a manufacturing employee at the Defendant's
Springfield, Ohio manufacturing facility.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt
employees, and paid them on an hourly basis. However, although they
frequently worked over 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to
compensate them for all hours they worked, including overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. This is a result
of the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate them for the time
they spent performing pre-shift work duties amounted approximately
15 to 30 minutes per day, and failure to include the shift
differential and bonuses paid to its manufacturing employees in
their regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime
compensation. In addition, the Defendant failed to make, keep and
preserve accurate records of the unpaid overtime worked by the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated manufacturing employees, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment
interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

Silfex, Inc. provides high purity custom silicon components and
assemblies that serve a broad base of high technology markets.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

                - and –

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


SLAWSON EXPLORATION: Powell Family Files Suit in North Dakota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slawson Exploration
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Powell Family Mineral LLC, on
behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons v.
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-DMT-CRH
(D.N.D., March 3, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. --
http://www.slawsoncompanies.com/-- explores and produces oil and
gas products. The Company offers crude oil, natural gas, liquefied
natural gas, and other oil products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY & PENDER, P.C.
          5630 34th Avenue So., Ste. 120
          Fargo, ND 58104
          Phone: (701) 281-8001
          Email: mike@mplawnd.com

               - and -

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          Gregory Bentz, Esq.
          Isaac Diel, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 gbentz@midwest-law.com
                 idiel@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Charles Thomas Schimmel, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          6900 College Blvd., Ste 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          cschimmel@midwest-law.com


SNAP NURSE: Ramirez Seeks Healthcare Providers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERICA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP NURSE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00762-AT (N.D. Ga., February 23, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff has contracted with the Defendant in August 2020 to
offer her services as a provider.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
depart from her home in Beaver, Pennsylvania to Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, but she needed to drive with her vehicle, which is needed
for the healthcare job she was providing. In addition, the
Defendant agreed to pay her $77.00 an hour for the first 40 hours
and $115.50 an hour for hours worked in excess of 40 hours.
Although the Plaintiff arrived at her worksite on August 21, 2020
for orientation pursuant to the contract; however, she was not
provided work as guaranteed by her contract, and she was not
provided reimbursement for her travel and lodging to and from Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, the suit adds.

The complaint also asserts that the Defendant has failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the members of the putative Collective overtime
compensation, and failed to keep accurate records of time their
employees worked.

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated employees,
who were contracted to provide temporary service for the Defendant
but were not reimbursed for travel time and expenses, the Plaintiff
seeks unpaid wages which constitute minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
liquidated damages, service payments to Plaintiff, pre- and
post-judgment payment and interests, costs and expenses including
reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees, an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease its practice of violating the FLSA.

Snap Nurse, Inc. serves as an intermediary for healthcare providers
to find temporary work across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Easom, Esq.
          THE EASOM FIRM
          P.O. Box 1093
          Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32004
          Tel: (904) 894-3094
          E-mail: easom76@gmail.com

                - and –

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant St., Suite 125
          Pittsburg, PA 15219
          Tel: (412) 281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

                - and –

          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Tel: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Wasa Medical & Calvo Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative
class action suits initiated by Wasa Medical Holdings and Jeannette
Calvo were consolidated.

On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical filed a putative federal securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the company,
its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark
R. Brunswick, Ph.D.

The action alleges that the Company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made
materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing
public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus
infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the
same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same
relief.

On February 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order consolidating the cases and
appointing a lead plaintiff, Andrew Zenoff, and lead counsel.  

Sorrento said, "It is anticipated that the Plaintiff will file a
consolidated amended complaint pursuant to a court scheduling order
or stipulation of the parties. No deadline for the filing of that
complaint or any response thereto by defendants has been set. The
Company is defending these matters vigorously."

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and
commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to
transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable
disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other
indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The
company is based in San Diego, California

SPARTANBURG, SC: Judge Endorses Denial of Lovelace Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Lee Lovelace,
Austin Scott Turner, Protection and Advocacy for the People with
Disabilities, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1-10, v. Chuck Wright,
Spartanburg County Sheriff, and Allen Freeman, Jail Administrator,
Case No. 6:20-cv-01977-BHH-KFM (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Kevin F.
McDonald recommended that the district court deny the plaintiffs'
motion to certify class with leave to file an updated motion
following the district court's ruling on the pending motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and motion
to supplement the record.

On May 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On
July 6, 2020, following the filing of the report and recommendation
on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, the
undersigned issued an order holding the motion to certify class in
abeyance pending the district court's ruling on the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction. The order directed the
defendants to file a response to the motion to certify class within
14 days of the district court's ruling on the motion for
preliminary injunction.

Since the filing of Judge McDonald's order holding the motion to
certify class in abeyance, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
supplement the record with regard to their motion for preliminary
injunction, noting that conditions in the SCDC have changed since
the undersigned's report and recommendation on the motion was
filed. The motion to supplement the record is pending before the
district court. Given the length of time that has passed since the
filing of the plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the rapidly
evolving information regarding COVID-19 and changing conditions at
the SCDC, Judge McDonald recommends that the district court deny
the plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

A copy of the Judge Recommendation dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uHWC0e at no extra
charge.[CC]

STATE STREET: Class Suit Over Invoicing Practices Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that  the company
remains a defendant in a purported class suit related to its
invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against us
alleging that our invoicing practices violated duties owed to
retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

In addition, the company received a purported class action demand
letter alleging that our invoicing practices were unfair and
deceptive under Massachusetts law.

A class of customers, or particular customers, may assert that we
have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may
seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts law.

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


STEMILT AG: Gomez Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA and
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, v. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00254-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certifying two classes:

   -- For their federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act
      (TVPA) claims, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a
      class defined as:

      "All Mexican nationals employed at Stemilt Ag Services,
      LLC in Washington, pursuant to the 2017 H-2A contract from
      August 14, 2017 through November 15, 2017;"

      The TVPA Class asserts: 1) forced labor claims under the
      federal TVPA arising from a common scheme of threats and a
      common practice of the abuse of law to obtain the
      continued  labor of its H-2A workers along with a related
      claim for hostile work environment based on national
      origin in  violation of the Washington Law Against
      Discrimination arising from these same common practices;
      2) claims that Stemilt failed to comply with multiple
      requirements of the Washington Farm Labor Contractors Act,
      along with a related breach of contract claim arising from
      Stemilt's imposition of unlawful production standards";
      and

   -- The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class defined
      as:

      "All Mexican nationals employed at Stemilt Ag Services,
      LLC in Washington, pursuant to the 2017 H-2A contracts
      from January 16 through November 15, 2017, who traveled on
      Stemilt buses to Stemilt orchards for work;"

      The Wait Time Class asserts that Stemilt had a policy of
      requiring H-2A workers who used Stemilt transportation to
      wait without compensation both before and after 8 work in
      violation of Washington wage and hour law.

This is a forced labor class action brought under the TVPA on
behalf of over 1,100 Mexican H-2A workers who allege that, in 2017,
supervisors for Stemilt Ag Services, LLC routinely threatened to
send them "back to Mexico" and blacklist them from future work at
Stemilt "or any other American company" for failing to meet
unlawful daily apple harvest production standards.

Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing farm management services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NMm2tb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Maria Diana Garcia, Esq.
          Joachim Morrison, Esq.
          Alfredo Gonzalez Benitez, Esq.
          Amy L. Crewdson, Esq.
          COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
          7103 W. Clearwater Avenue, Suite C
          Kennewick, WA 99336
          Telephone: (509) 374-9855
          E-mail: diana.garcia@columbialegal.org
                  joe.morrison@columbialegal.org
                  alfredo.gonzalez@columbialegal.org
                  amy.crewdson@columbialegal.org

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Accent Owners Sue Over Defective Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Hickman, Jared Hickman, William Treasurer, Kelly Drogowski,
and Frank Drogowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America, Inc. and
Subaru Corporation (f/k/a Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.), Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-02100, (D. N.J., February 8, 2021), is a product
liability suit involving the vehicle transmission of the Subaru
Accent.

The 2019 Subaru Ascent featured a "Lineartronic HCVT (High-Torque
Continuously Variable Transmission) with Adaptive Control, Auto
Vehicle Hold (AVH) and 8-speed manual mode with paddle shifters."
Plaintiffs claim that the transmissions later installed contain one
or more defects that cause hesitation, jerking, shuddering,
lurching, squeaking, whining, or other loud noises, delays in
acceleration, inconsistent shifting, stalling, and a loss of power
or ability to accelerate at all. Said defect damages vehicle's
alignment, puts unnecessary stress on the tires and brakes, causes
premature wear and replacement and may even cause damage to the
engine making it difficult for drivers to move smoothly through
intersections, entering and exiting highways, changing lanes and
even controlling speed on inclines and declines in the road.

Plaintiffs are owners of Subaru Ascents.

Subaru of America markets and distributes automobiles throughout
the United States and is a division of the Japanese conglomerate
Subaru Corp. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Russell D. Paul, Esq.
      BERGER MONTAGUE PC
      1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: rpaul@bm.net


TANNER TRAINING: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanner Training LLC.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tanner Training LLC doing business as:
The Cashflow Academy, Case No. 1:21-cv-01102 (E.D.N.Y., March 1,
2021).

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

The Cash Flow Academy -- https://thecashflowacademy.com/ -- is a
financial services company which aims to empower and inspire people
to discover how to create their own income.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Ervin, on behalf
of himself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade
Holdings Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-00266-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. certifying each of his claims for class action treatment
      and defining the class as follows:

      "All TD Ameritrade accountholders who, during the time
      period from February 19, 2010 through the present,
      received a substitute payment in lieu of a qualifying
      dividend without also receiving a premium payment;"

      Excluded from the class are all judicial officers
      presiding over this or any related case. The class
      definition also excludes all officers and employees of TD
      Ameritrade.;

   2. appointing hims as class representative and that his
      attorneys of Bartle & Marcus LLC and The Law Office of
      Jared A. Rose be appointed class counsel.

   3. directing the parties to submit an agreed-upon class
      notice or submit any disputes they may have over class
      notice within 21 days of a class certification order so
      that notice may be issued promptly.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed-income
investments.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3kJDvhUat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 256-4699
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: Dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -

          Jared A. Rose, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE
          919 West 47th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-4335
          Facsimile: 816.873.5406
          E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason M. Hans, Esq.
          GERMAN MAY PC
          1201 Walnut Street, 20th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          E-mail: jasonh@germanmay.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq.
          Theodore L. Kornobis, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1601 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          E-mail: Stephen.topetzes@klgates.com
                  Ted.kornobis@klgates.com

TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the appeal on the order of
dismissal of the class action suit headed by IWA Forest Industry
Pension Fund, is pending.

On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

On November 12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry
Pension Fund as the sole lead plaintiff in the case. On December
24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now entitled In re
Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.

On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on
March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to
dismiss and closed the case.

On August 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal contesting
the dismissal, which Textron has opposed. That appeal remains
pending.

Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry
companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna,
Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages
its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance
businesses to provide customers with innovative products and
services. The company is based in Providence, Rhode Island.

THERA GROUP: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thera Group. The case
is captioned as Kareem Nisbett v. Thera Group, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01364-PGG-SDA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com

TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend itself against the class action and derivative suit styled,
Braun v. Kennedy, C.A.  No. 2020-0137-KSJM.

On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader
Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No.
2020-0137-KSJM.

On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James
Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v.
Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.

The two complaints are nearly identical, were filed by the same
group of counsel, and name Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael
Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer
Evolution, LLC (as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as
defendants and Tilray as a nominal defendant.

On March 4, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the
Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint.

The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution (the
"Privateer Defendants") for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
their alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and
against Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers
of Tilray in connection with the Downstream Merger.

The operative complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the
Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream
Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach
breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the
Downstream Merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger
gave the Privateer Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of
tax savings without providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and
its minority stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly
transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over
Tilray. On July 17, 2020, the stockholder plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims.

On August 14, 2020, Tilray and all defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 14, 2020, in light of the Plaintiffs'
statement that certain actions may have mooted some of their claims
related to the alleged unfair extension of control over Tilray, the
Court entered an order adjourning the planned November 4, 2020
hearing and removing the pending deadlines for briefing on the
motions to dismiss.

The hearing was rescheduled to February 5, 2021. On February 5,
2021, the Court held a hearing on those Motions and reserved
judgment.

On December 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims that the Downstream Merger improperly
perpetuated or extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's alleged control
as moot in light of the automatic conversion of Tilray's Class 1
common stock to Class 2 common stock.

The parties have not yet agreed to a schedule on the briefing for
that motion, but, at the February 5, 2021 hearing, the Plaintiffs
agreed that their perpetuation of control claims are moot and
stated that they intend to move for a fee award in connection with
those claims.

The defendants believe the claims, in this case, are without merit,
and intend to defend this case vigorously, but there are no
assurances as to its outcome.

Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit initiated by Lisa Langevin.

On June 16, 2020, Langevin commenced a purported class action in
the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, on her behalf and on behalf of
a proposed class of all medicinal and recreational users in Canada
of the defendants' cannabis products who consumed the products
before their expiry date. She alleges that the defendants,
including Tilray, marketed medicinal and recreational cannabis
products in circumstances where the defendants misrepresented the
amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or Cannabidiol (CBD) in their
respective products.

As a result of the defendants' alleged mislabeling of the cannabis
products it is claimed that the plaintiff and proposed class
members did not receive and consume the product that they believed
that they had purchased and that this caused them loss, risk of
injury and actual injury. Ms. Langevin claims that on February 13,
2020 she purchased Canaca – TenUp manufactured and distributed by
Tilray.

She had it tested and allegedly found that it only contained 43% of
the claimed amount of THC. The Statement of Claim seeks
$500,000,000 in damages and restitution and $5,000,000 in punitive
damages plus interest and costs collectively from the defendants.

On July 20, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Amended Statement of
Claim, and on December 4, 2020 the Plaintiff delivered a Third
Amended Statement of Claim.

Tilray said, "We plan to vigorously defend against this action."

Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Appeals Suit Ruling to 1st Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adam Rovinelli filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ADAM ROVINELLI and JENNIFER CARLOS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-11304-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Springfield.

The Plaintiffs allege that Trans World "used highly aggressive
sales tactics to charge thousands of consumers for, and profit
millions of dollars from, bogus 'loyalty memberships' and magazine
subscriptions," through allegedly "deceptive and misleading"
marketing practices.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order
dated February 2, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to strike the
class allegations and denying as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss
the surviving individual claims as failure to state a claim.  

The appellate case is captioned as Rovinelli, et al v. Trans World
Entertainment Corp., Case No. 21-1160, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, February 25, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that docketing
statement, transcript report/order form, and appearance form are
due on March 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM ROVINELLI, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark J. Albano, Esq.
          ALBANO LAW LLC
          1 Monarch Pl, Ste 1150
          Springfield, MA 01144-1150
          Telephone: (413) 736-6971
          E-mail: mark@albanolawllc.com

               - and -

          Angela M. Edwards, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANGELA EDWARDS
          72 Canterbury Cir.
          East Longmeadow, MA 01028
          Telephone: (413) 525-3820
          E-mail: angelaedwards@charter.net   

               - and -

          Jason Giaimo, Esq.
          Lee Scott Shalov, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          260 Madison Ave
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
                  lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com

Defendant-Appellee TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORP. is represented
by:

          James E. Gallagher, Esq.
          DAVIS MALM & D'AGOSTINE PC
          1 Boston Pl., 37th Flr
          Boston, MA 02108-0000
          Telephone: (617) 589-3883
          E-mail: jgallagher@davismalm.com

               - and -

          David S. Greenberg, Esq.
          Neal H. Klausner, Esq.
          Ina B. Scher, Esq.
          DAVIS & GILBERT LLP
          1740 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-4800
          E-mail: dgreenberg@dglaw.com
                  nklausner@dglaw.com
                  ischer@dglaw.com     

               - and -

          Christopher J. Marino, Esq.
          DAVIS MALM & D'AGOSTINE PC
          1 Boston Pl., 37th Flr
          Boston, MA 02108-0000
          Telephone: (617) 589-3833
          E-mail: cmarino@davismalm.com

TRUEACCORD CORP: Rivera Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Darien Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
2:21-cv-01095 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt
collection agency.[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

The Defendant appears pro se.


TRUEACCORD CORP: Tukin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. et
al. The case is styled as Bob V. Tukin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., CVI SGP
Acquisition Trust, Case No. 4:21-cv-01526-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 3,
2021).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jitesh Dudani, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (510) 701-7886
          Email: jitesh.roxx@gmail.com


TRUSTCO BANK: Jenkins Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustco Bank. The
case is styled as Thomas Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Trustco Bank, Case No.
1:21-cv-00238-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Trustco Bank -- https://www.trustcobank.com/ -- is a commercial
bank within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.-New York Office
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Fax: (646) 293-7937
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit related to user settings is currently on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

In December 2020, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims.

The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real-time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.

TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in consolidated
class action suit is scheduled on September 20, 2021.  

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action.

In January 2021, the Company entered into a binding agreement to
settle the pending shareholder derivative lawsuits.

The proposed settlement resolves all claims asserted against the
Company and the other named defendants in the derivative lawsuits
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally
or the Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company's board of
directors will adopt and implement certain corporate governance
modifications. In addition, the Company will receive $38.0 million
of insurance proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes.

The settlement will not require the Company to make any payment,
aside from covering certain administrative costs related to the
settlement. The settlement agreement is subject to final approval
by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which is
scheduled for March 2021.

The shareholder class action remains pending and is scheduled for
trial on September 20, 2021.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit as Drivers Demand Employee Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
staffingindustry.com reports that London-based law firm Leigh Day,
known for its high profile cases against Uber and Deliveroo,
announced it is partnering with South African law firm Mbuyisa
Moleele (MBM Law) to launch a class action in South Africa against
Uber.

The case will be on behalf of drivers wanting to be recognised as
employees, rather than as independent contractors.

Leigh Day launched the landmark gig economy case against Uber in
the UK which recently resulted in a Supreme Court victory for the
riders meaning that Uber must classify its drivers as workers
rather than self-employed.

"Uber drivers in other parts of the world now have employment
rights like paid holiday after Uber was beaten in court," MBM Law
stated. "Uber won't pay South African drivers unless we take them
to court. Drivers may be entitled to paid holiday and unpaid
overtime."

"The case will be on behalf of drivers wanting to be recognised as
employees, rather than as independent contractors," MBM Law
continued. "Leigh Day are assisting South Africa based law firm
Mbuyisa Moleele attorneys, who will be launching a similar class
action in SA and have asked local Uber drivers to join the suit."

According to Leigh Day, South African legislation relating to
employment status and rights, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and
the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA), is very similar to
UK employment law.

"Furthermore, Uber operates a similar system in South Africa, with
drivers using an app, which the UK Supreme Court concluded resulted
in drivers' work being "tightly defined and controlled" by Uber,"
the law firm stated.

The UK's Supreme Court noted that while the system of control
operated by Uber was in its commercial interests, it clearly placed
drivers in a position of subordination and dependency in relation
to the company.

Uber South Africa operates in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban,
Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and East London, and in 2018, it was
estimated to control 75% of the South African taxi market.

Leigh Day said that estimates suggest that there are between 12,000
to 20,000 drivers in South Africa using the Uber app who will be
covered by the lawsuit, which is an opt-out class action in which a
small number of representative plaintiffs are claiming on behalf of
the wider class of Uber drivers.

Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys said, "Uber's argument
that it is just an app does not hold water when its behaviour is
that of an employer. The current model exploits drivers, they are
effectively employees but do not benefit from the associated
protections. We are issuing a call to workers to stand up for their
rights and join the class action against Uber."

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day said, "The ruling by the UK Supreme
Court is a final vindication for UK Uber drivers who have for too
long been denied their statutory employment rights as workers. We
hope that this class action in South Africa will enable South
African Uber drivers to access those same rights."

In a statement to Business Tech South Africa, Uber said the vast
majority of drivers who use the Uber app say they want to work
independently.

"We've already made significant changes to our app to ensure we
support this, including through Partner Injury Protection, new
safety features and access to quality and affordable private
healthcare cover for drivers and their families, voluntarily," Uber
stated.

"We continue to do as much as possible to enhance the earnings
potential of drivers, and leverage innovative offerings like fuel
rewards, vehicle maintenance and other special offers to help
them," the human cloud firm continued. "At a time when we need more
jobs, not fewer, we believe Uber and other platforms can be a
bridge to a sustainable economic recovery."

"This is testament to the appeal of the Uber business model which
provides drivers with an independent status while allowing them to
develop and expand their businesses following their needs and time
schedules as well as their business skills and plans, and pursue
any economic activities of their choice," Uber stated.[GN]

UNCLE HEGNA: Cabreja Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
OTILIO ANDRES CABREJA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNCLE HEGNA GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A
STOP ONE DELI), ABDULLA SALEH, BASSAM AHMED, and SALEH AHMED,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01113 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay the Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked; failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their total
worked hours; and failure to provide accurate wage notice and wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sandwich maker, stock and sales
associate, cashier, and janitor at the deli located at 88-34 Parson
Blvd., Jamaica, New York.

Uncle Hegna Grocery Corp., doing business as Stop One Deli, is an
owner and operator of a deli located at 88-34 Parson Blvd.,
Jamaica, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

UNIBARNS TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unibarns Trading Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Unibarns Trading Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01754 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2021).

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

Unibarns Trading Inc. -- https://www.unibarns.com/ -- is a modern
logistics company with warehousing management experience and
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Common Ground Files Writ of Certiorari Bid w/ S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative filed with the
Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the matter styled COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, ON
BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, v.
UNITED STATES, Respondent, Case No. 20-1200.

Response is due on March 31, 2021.

The Plaintiff seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the
case titled COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVE, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 2020-1286. The court
of appeals issued its order and judgment on September 30, 2020. The
court of appeals denied Common Ground's petition for rehearing en
banc on December 16, 2020.

The question presented is: May the United States invoke a
non-statutory mitigation defense to avoid the unambiguous
requirement of section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Government "shall make"
cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers in set amounts?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative contends, for itself and on
behalf of those similarly situated, that the federal government
ceased making the cost-sharing reduction payments to which it and
other insurers are entitled under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Common Ground Healthcare
Cooperative, et al., is represented by:

          Kathleen Marie Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          E-mail: kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com

Defendant-Appellee-Respondent United States is represented by:

          Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

UNITED STATES: Faces Medina Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America. The case is captioned as Medina v. United States of
America, Case No. 1:21-cv-01427-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2021).

The case arises from alleged civil rights violations.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Ian Anthony Medina
          33 Beckman St.
          Apt. BK0607
          New York, NY 10037

UNIVERSAL COIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Coin &
Bullion, LTD. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Coin &
Bullion, LTD., Case No. 1:21-cv-01795 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Universal Coin & Bullion Limited -- https://www.universalcoin.com/
-- operates as a financial services company. The Company provides
gold coins, bricks and various other precious metal for
purchasing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


US FERTILITY: Mullinix Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Mullinix, Patrisia Vela, Omar
Orozco, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. US Fertility, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02021-01181929 was
removed from the Superior Court of California - County of Orange,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on March 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00409-CJC-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

US Fertility -- https://www.usfertility.com/ -- is one of the
largest physician-owned and physician-led management services
organization supporting leading fertility programs across the
United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          April Chen Yang, Esq.
          Robert James Dart, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 april@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James F. Monagle, Esq.
          MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
          426 West Lancaster Avenue Suite 200
          Devon, PA 19333
          Phone: (267) 930-4770
          Fax: (267) 930-4771
          Email: jmonagle@mullen.law


USA WINE & SPIRITS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Wine & Spirits,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. USA Wine & Spirits, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01797 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

USA Wine & Spirits, Inc. -- http://www.usawineandspiritsinc.com/--
is located in Sun Valley, California and is part of the Beer, Wine
& Distilled Spirits Wholesalers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR, VLDRW) ("Velodyne") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Velodyne securities
between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Velodyne
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 3, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com;
or click
https://www.ktmc.com/velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-fraud-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=velodyne

According to the complaint, Velodyne provides solutions to develop
safe automated systems including real-time surround view lidar
sensors. Velodyne became a public entity on September 29, 2020 when
it merged with Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition
company.

The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Velodyne filed
its quarterly report on a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended September 30, 2020. The
report stated "[b]ased on the evaluation of our disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our chief executive officer and
chief financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable
assurance level."

However, the truth began to be revealed on February 22, 2021,
before the market opened, when Velodyne announced that its Board of
Directors had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and
terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of
the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded
that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard
to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with
respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with
[Velodyne] officers and directors." In addition, Velodyne's Board
formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but they would remain
directors of Velodyne.

Following this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or
approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22,
2021. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or
approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22,
2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) certain of
Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Velodyne's officers
and directors; (2) Velodyne was investigating the foregoing
matters; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
positive statements about Velodyne's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Velodyne investors may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

VENUS ET FLEUR: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venus Et Fleur LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Venus Et Fleur LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01834 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021).

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

Venus ET Fleur -- https://www.venusetfleur.com/ -- became New
York's first bespoke floral house in 2015 and specializes in
exquisite, luxurious floral arrangements, including Eternity(R)
Roses, which last for an entire year without tending to.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERSO CORP: Living & Deceased Retirees Get Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BAILEY, et al.,
v. VERSO CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00332-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order:

   1. granting the parties' renewed motion for class
      certification on behalf of:

      "All living and deceased retirees from Verso Corporation's
      Wickliffe, Kentucky Papermill who were affected by Verso
      Corporation's December 31, 2016 termination of the death
      benefit provided under the Parties' collective-bargaining
      agreement;"

   2. preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class action
      settlement;

   3. approving the parties' proposed class notice;

   4. setting an objection Deadline of May 3, 2021 and a
      fairness hearing for July 7, 2021;

   5. naming the plaintiffs Clifford Bailey and James Spencer as
      class representatives; and

   6. appointing the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The parties agree that a class action is the proper vehicle to
resolve this case. The Plaintiffs advanced claims that could have
been brought by any one of the retirees. Their efforts secured a
pro-rata recovery that no individual class member would have been
incentivized to pursue on their own. Additionally, the parties
stipulate that named Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately
represent the class. The Court agrees and, for the following
reasons, certifies the class.

The Plaintiffs filed this action under the Labor Management
Relations Act (LMRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a
proposed class, to recover collectively-bargained life insurance
coverage and death benefits for retirees of Defendant Verso
now-closed Wickliffe, Kentucky paper mill.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sJ8IEK at no extra charge.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS MEJIA on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated. v. WALGREEN CO., et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00218-WBS-AC (E.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court on March 22, 2021 to enter the concurrently filed
[Proposed] Judgment and Order granting final approval of the class
action settlement seeking the following:

   1. Granting final approval of the class action settlement;

   2. Certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes
      only;

   3. Appointing Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of Lavi &
      Ebrahimian, LLP and Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel and
      Plaintiff Lucas Mejia as Class Representative for
      settlement purposes only;

   4. Approving the settlement as fair, adequate, and
      reasonable, based upon the terms as set forth in the
      court-approved Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
      including payment by the Defendants of the maximum
      settlement payment of $4,500,000, except that Defendants
      shall separately pay their FICA/FUTA payments and employer
      side payroll taxes, equal to the amount owed to pay (1)
      the Class Members pursuant to the terms of the settlement;
      (2) the court-approved attorneys' fees and costs; (3) the
      court-approved class representative enhancement, (4) the
      court-19 approved settlement administration costs; and (5)
      the court-approved payment to the Labor and Workforce
      Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys
      General Act of 2004 (PAGA);

   5. Approving the Plaintiff's Counsel's request for $1,125,000
      in attorneys' fees plus reimbursement of litigation costs
      of $11,362.77;

   6. Approving an enhancement of $7,500 to the Plaintiff in
      recognition of his service to the Class Members;

   7. Approving settlement administration costs of $35,000; and

   8. Approving $112,500 to be paid to the California Labor and
      Workforce Development Agency as 75% of the $150,000
      allocated to civil penalties under the PAGA.

Walgreen is an American company that operates as the second-largest
pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health. It
specializes in filling prescriptions, health and wellness products,
health information, and photo services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/383oFO5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dilworth Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AMIA DILWORTH, ALEJANDRO CABALLERO, ALEX CABALLERO, and NOURA
MAJOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV07031 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Dilworth and Major was employed by the Defendants as
cashier. Plaintiff Alejandro Caballero was employed as stocker,
cashier, and maintenance worker. Plaintiff Alex Caballero as
cashier and assistant manager.

Western Refining Retail, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action
initiated by Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa against Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L.
("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary, has been stayed.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary WUFSA.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the
Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the
proceedings.

The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage. The
case will be stayed until: (i) the Attorney-General instructs the
Prosecutor to continue to litigate the claims on behalf of the
plaintiff (during the time the registration of Consumidores
Financieros before the Secretary of Commerce remains suspended); or
(ii) the parties report to the Court that the plaintiff recovered
its legal capacity.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

WILLOWS INN: Settles $600,000 Suit Over Alleged Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabe Guarente at eater.com reports that the Willows Inn -- Lummi
Island's nationally renowned fine dining establishment -- has
agreed to pay $600,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit for alleged
wage theft. In the lawsuit, filed in 2017, former employees accused
Willows Inn head chef/co-owner Blaine Wetzel and management for
"failing to pay minimum wage for all work performed, overtime
wages, and to provide or pay for rest and meal breaks under
Washington law." A settlement was agreed upon by both parties in
October 2020.

The lawsuit -- which the Seattle Times first reported -- is related
to a labor violation notice the restaurant received around the same
time, roughly four years ago. At the time, the Willows Inn doled
out $149,000 in unpaid wages and damages to 19 kitchen staff
members, following a Department of Labor (DOL) investigation. In
its report from 2017, the Labor Department claimed Willows Inn
"violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
and minimum wage to its employees."

According to the 2017 DOL report, the Willows Inn violated labor
laws by having its "stages" -- culinary interns who generally work
for free in fine-dining restaurants -- work for as many as 14 hours
a day, with no overtime, and day rates as low as $50. In response,
the restaurant nixed its staging program, but denied any wrongdoing
- and continues to push back on the allegations.

"After over three years of lawyers defending us against these
claims, we were moved to settle due to current and mounting legal
fees," Wetzel told Eater Seattle, emphasizing that the allegations
"are in no way accurate." He added that the wording used in the
lawsuit "is a tool that this specialized law firm uses to greatly
exacerbate a citation we received from 2016."

Wetzel also stated that the restaurant has not allowed any
"staigiers" or "unaccredited interns" since receiving the labor
department's citation in 2016 and currently follows all Washington
State wage and labor laws.

The Seattle Times reports that 99 non-supervisory employees were
identified as members of the class-action lawsuit, and will receive
a portion of the settlement sum, recovering about 75 percent of
lost wages. Under the terms of the agreement, it's documented that
Wetzel and the defendants are not admitting to any wrongdoing, and
the former employees who initially filed the suit are bound by a
non-disclosure provision.

After COVID measures delayed its usual annual opening plan in March
2020, the Willows Inn resumed service in a limited capacity last
summer. As a seasonal operation, it is currently closed for the
winter.

Eater Seattle reached out to the attorney representing the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit and will update this article as more info
is provided. [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for June 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK (N.D. Calif.), the
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order granting the Parties'
stipulation as follows:

   1. Last day for Zoom to complete rolling production of items
      it agreed to produce as of the February 5, 2021 Joint
      Statement is April 9. 2021;

   2. Last day to file for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class
      Certification is June 25, 2021;

   3. Last day for Zoom to file Opposition to Motion for Class
      Certification is August 13, 2021;

   4. Last day for Plaintiffs to file Reply in Support of Class
      Certification is September 3, 2021;

   5. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification is set for
      September 23, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.; and

   6. The Close of Fact Discovery is October 29, 2021.

Zoom Video is an American communications technology company
headquartered in San Jose, California. It provides videotelephony
and online chat services through a cloud-based peer-to-peer
software platform and is used for teleconferencing, telecommuting,
distance education, and social relations.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/388infU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel are:

         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         Theodore Maya, Esq.
         Christopher Stiner, Esq.
         Rachel Johnson, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 West Olive Ave, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                 twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
                rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com

              - and -

         Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
         Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
         Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
         Julia Peng  Esq.
         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
                 tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
                 nrahman@cpmlegal.com
                 jpeng@cpmlegal.com

The Defendant Zoom is represented by:

         Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
         Travis Leblanc, Esq.
         Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Kleine, Esq.
         Danielle C. Pierre, Esq.
         Joseph D. Mornin, Esq.
         Evan G. Slovak, Esq.
         Kelsey R. Spector, Esq.
         COOLEY LLP
         101 California Street, 5th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
         Telephone: (415) 693 2000
         Facsimile: (415) 693 2222
         E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                 tleblanc@cooley.com
                 khartnett@cooley.com
                 bkleine@cooley.com
                 dpierre@cooley.com
                 jmornin@cooley.com
                 eslovak@cooley.com
                 kspector@cooley.com

[*] 10 Auto Insurance Companies Face Lawsuits Over Pandemic Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Egan at Forbes reports that policyholders and auto insurance
companies are colliding in court over allegations that drivers in
Nevada have been overcharged for insurance during the coronavirus
pandemic, with fewer miles being driven and fewer accidents
happening.

The basis for the allegation has been played out across the country
in the past year, as cars sat in driveways instead of motoring
through daily commutes and errands.

On Feb. 23, Las Vegas law firm Eglet Adams and Reno, Nevada,
attorney Matthew Sharp filed lawsuits in a Las Vegas court on
behalf of Nevada policyholders against 10 auto insurers: Acuity,
Allstate, Farmers, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, Progressive,
State Farm, Travelers and USAA. The lawsuits seek class action
status in Nevada.

Allegations That Auto Insurance Refunds Didn't Reflect True Decline
in Driving
The lawsuits claim that in April 2020, traffic at the
Nevada-California border fell 66% compared to April 2019.
Furthermore, the lawsuits say that the number of auto accidents in
southern Nevada dropped 60% in March 2020 versus a year earlier.
However, the plaintiffs assert, auto insurance premiums, credits
and car insurance refunds failed to adequately reflect the decline
in vehicle traffic and accidents after the onset of the pandemic.

The lawsuits note that Nevada law prohibits insurance companies
from charging "excessive" insurance premiums.

Typical refunds around the country were 15% for two months, but
some insurers offered one-time credits, refunds over a longer
period or another refund type.

Data published in December 2020 by the Consumer Federation of
America and the Center for Economic Justice indicates 181,000 fewer
auto accidents happened last March through October in four states
-- Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts and Texas -- compared with the
same period in 2019.

Insurance Industry Responds
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), a
trade group for insurance companies, dismisses the lawsuits as a
misguided attempt by lawyers to drum up new business during the
pandemic.

In a statement, the APCIA says the plaintiffs' attorneys are
"misconstruing" traffic and auto insurance data. The association
says that in 2020, auto insurers provided more than $14 billion in
refunds and credits to U.S. policyholders due to a reduction in
driving during the pandemic. The statement cites data from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing traffic
deaths actually rose in the first nine months of 2020, despite the
decline in overall miles traveled.

Furthermore, the group points out that the insurance industry has
made more than $220 million in donations to support various
communities during the pandemic.

"Litigation profiteering is a direct threat to long-term economic
recovery. The insurance industry is working to rebuild communities
and yet this type of lawsuit abuse has the opposite effect," said
Stef Zielezienski, the association's executive vice president and
chief legal officer, in a statement.

Robert Eglet, leader of the trial team at Eglet Adams, calls the
APCIA's response to these suits "a clear attempt to gaslight" trial
attorneys and "is unfortunately expected given how they have
treated their customers, who they know have suffered economic
stress because of the pandemic."

In Nevada, refunds or credits issued to auto insurance
policyholders during the pandemic ranged from a one-time refund of
$50 to $100 to a three-month credit of 25% in 2020, according to
the lawsuits. "The reduction in claims are significantly more than
these so-called discounts," Eglet says.

As such, auto insurers reaped "obscene windfall profits" well
beyond the $14 billion in rollbacks cited by the APCIA, says
Eglet.

Bob Hunter, insurance director of the Consumer Federation of
America, says his organization started calling for pandemic-fueled
auto insurance rollbacks in March 2020 and has continued to
highlight what it views as insufficient refunds and credits. He
alleges that Allstate and Progressive "effectively swindled" money
from policyholders by paying dividends to their shareholders.

Hunter believes the Nevada attorneys have a legitimate case against
the 10 auto insurers.

"I wish these guys luck. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say if their
theory works. I only know that if there is justice, something like
this should work," he says. "The real culprits, however, are the
regulators who, except for four states, did nothing. Only
California has done it right, still monitoring and requiring
paybacks." (California, Michigan, New Jersey and New Mexico ordered
refunds for drivers, and insurers voluntarily provided refunds in
other states.)

In response to the lawsuits, a spokesperson for Allstate says it
was the first insurer to respond to a decrease in auto accidents
with paybacks of nearly $1 billion. "Since then, we have continued
to support our customers with broad reductions in auto insurance
rates that will continue beyond the pandemic," the spokesperson
says.

A spokesperson for Progressive says the company doesn't comment on
pending litigation. However, the spokesperson notes that
Progressive gave customers more than $1.1 billion in premium
credits and rate reductions due to the pandemic. In Nevada alone,
rate reductions last summer translated to more than $25 million in
annualized savings for drivers in the state, the spokesperson
adds.

A USAA spokesperson says the company is reviewing the suits, adding
that USAA returned $1.07 billion to auto insurance policyholders
last year because fewer drivers were on the road during the
pandemic.

Farmers, Liberty Mutual and State Farm declined to comment on the
suits. Representatives of Acuity, GEICO, Nationwide and Travelers
couldn't be reached for comment.

Zielezienski, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association
attorney, encourages policyholders to contact their insurers about
potential adjustments in premiums based on changes in their driving
habits if insurers didn't automatically make adjustments.

"Insurers understood the urgency of helping businesses and
individuals recover from the unprecedented crisis caused by the
Covid-19 pandemic," Zielezienski says. [GN]

[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that class action settlements are complicated affairs. They
can take months or even years to negotiate, followed by months to
send notice and obtain trial court approval, and months or years
longer if an approval order is appealed. The agreements
memorializing class action settlements are often dozens of pages
long or longer. They sometimes involve claims processes run by
third-party vendors who are hired to manage years of complex data.
Objections can require extensive briefing and at times result in
evidentiary hearings. Between the attorneys' fees incurred in the
settlement process as well as costs of administration, class action
settlements often result in expenditures of hundreds of thousands
of dollars if not more.

So why do parties and their lawyers on both sides subject
themselves to such a burdensome, time-consuming and expensive
process? When you cut through all the posturing and all of the
carefully crafted details of the written agreement and court
submissions, what are the core terms at the heart of the
settlement?

Every case and every class action settlement has its own unique
drivers, but a few basic and familiar concepts are common to the
vast majority of them. And they come in two varieties – the aims
of the plaintiffs and their counsel and the aims of defendants.
Respectively, they can be thought of as the Relief and the
Release.

The Relief
Class counsel know their objective before they file suit: they want
the best possible deal for the class they seek to represent. Few
class actions go to trial, and from the outset, plaintiffs' counsel
typically view settlement as the desired outcome. In most cases,
they won't have a target settlement amount when they commence the
action because they will not yet have the data from which the
amount can be determined. However, they will have a general idea of
the magnitude of the claim based on the size of the defendant, the
general size of the affected class, the extent of the harm
allegedly inflicted on the class members, the nature of the claim
and the legal remedies available if they can prove it, and the
amounts of settlements achieved in comparable cases. The value of
the relief to the class takes on heightened importance in class
actions because of the need for judicial approval. It will
determine whether a court will approve the settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e), or comparable state provision. It also will be a factor in
determining the amount of the attorneys' fees the court will award
class counsel. While there will be a host of important, subsidiary
issues to resolve, the relief to the class is the key factor in
class counsel's decision to settle.

The Release
Defendants, too, will be focused on the cost of the relief they are
being asked to pay. They might look for non-monetary ways to bridge
gaps in the parties' settlement positions that add value to the
settlement without adding to the out-of-pocket costs, such as forms
of prospective injunctive relief or consensual undertakings that
will benefit class members in the future. The amount they are
willing to pay will depend, in part, on how they calculate their
litigation risk, including the probable outcomes if the case were
to go to trial and the expense of getting there, as well as their
degree of risk aversion, the extent of disruption to their business
caused by litigation, and perhaps other, less quantifiable issues,
such as employee relations, public relations, and reputational
risk. The bottom line for any defendant when settling a class
action, though, is the importance of achieving global peace,
defined as an agreement that terminates the current lawsuit and
prevents future lawsuits over the same or related conduct. While
there are a number of factors that contribute to the extent of the
peace that a defendant buys when settling a case on a class-wide
basis, there are two interconnected provisions of the settlement
agreement that require special attention: the class definition and
the release. Put simply, the class definition will determine who
will be bound by the release, and the language of the release will
determine what they are giving up by settling (or, for most class
members, by not opting out of the settlement). Other provisions of
a settlement, such as a "blow-up" provision (which allows a
defendant to withdraw from the settlement if too many class members
opt out) may also determine how much peace the settlement will buy,
but the class definition and the release language are core
considerations in a defendant's decision to settle.

The Rest
At the risk of over-simplification, when one gets beyond the relief
and the release, the rest is mostly process meant to ensure that
the absent class members are getting a fair and equitable shake. It
comes in the form of notice, opt-out provisions, and the right to
object to the settlement. "The Rest" also includes the mechanics of
how the settlement will work. For example, will each class member
receive the same settlement amount? If not, how will each class
member's payment be calculated? Will there be a claims process, or
will class members receive automatic payments? Will there be
residual funds, and if so, how will they be dealt with? What will
happen if a class notice or settlement check bounces back? These
are important issues that also will require careful consideration
and drafting and that a court will weigh it deciding whether to
approve the settlement, but they are secondary to the issues of
relief and release that drive the parties to agreement.

Take-Away
Not every class action should or will settle, but many do. To
achieve settlement, parties and their counsel should stay focused
on the core issues at the heart of any settlement: the relief that
will be provided to the class, and the release that will be
provided to the defendant. Once the parties agree on these core
terms, they should be able to reach agreement on the rest. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***