/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210310.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 44

                            Headlines

3927 VAN BUREN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Alleges
3M COMPANY: Holland Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
99 CENTS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration in McGuire Flipped
AARON'S INC: Aguirre FLSA Suit Transferred from S.D. to C.D. Calif.
ACCELLION INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Zebelman Claims

ALAN FURMAN: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALKERMES PLC: Eastern District of New York Tosses Securities Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Retains Portions of Tips for Drivers, Miller Says
AMCO INSURANCE: Bake's Place Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
AMGUARD INSURANCE: Wills Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Ill.

APA CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
APACHE CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
APPLE INC: Bid to Strike Ocampo's Second Amended Complaint Denied
ASTRAZENECA PLC: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
ATHENA CLUB: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Slade Suit Says

ATHENEX INC: Gupta Sues Over 55% Drop of Common Stock Price
ATHENEX INC: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ATHENEX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ATLAS OIL: Wilson Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA, NMMWA
AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Faces Trevino DPPA Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

BACKBEATRAGS LLC: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAJCO INT'L: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Valesh FLSA Suit
BAYER AG: Outcry Grows Over Proposed Settlement of Cancer Lawsuits
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers Sue Over Inflated Prices of Crop Inputs
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cantor Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products

BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Fallout 4 Video Game
BIOGEN INC: Shash Named Lead Plaintiff in Shapiro Class Suit
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: $9.6MM Judgment in Youmans Upheld in Part
BLUEBIRD BIO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BOFI HOLDING: Court Narrows Claims in Mandalevy Securities Suit

BOOZ ALLEN: Not Compelled to Yield Supplemental Docs in Hunter Suit
BOYD GAMING: Two Classes in James FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
BROGDON PROPERTIES: Faces Mantikas Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal.
CARGURUS INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Simoni Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

CENTENE CORP: Oliver Seeks Proper Wages for CSRs Under FLSA, IMWL
CHAPPAQUA SERENITY: Villalobos Sues Over Salon Staff's Unpaid Wages
CHICAGO, IL: Husch Blackwell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Ruling Certified for Interlocutory Appeal
CHOWBUS INC: Wang Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CLAREMONT RETIREMENT: Faces Andrade-Salinas Suit in California
CLOVER HEALTH: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
CNMI PUBLIC: Fund Can't Enforce Class Action Settlement Against PSS
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ice Cream Bars Are Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says
CREDIT CONTROL: Kereselidze Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CUSTOMS BY ILENE: Hentschel Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
DAKS INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, White Suit Claims
DHC FOOD: Faces Taylor Suit in Northern District of Illinois
DYLN INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EBIX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline

EBIX INC: Pawar Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EBIX INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: April 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EHANG HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of April 19 Deadline

EHANG HOLDINGS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
ELEVEN AUSTRALIA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EPIC GAMES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Fortnite Loot Boxes
ERIE INSURANCE: Sued Over Withholdings of Labor From ACV Payments
ESKINA 214: Ortiz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Matthews Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
F.R. GENERAL: Maryland Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in Rojas Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Wasvary Claims
FEDCA SCRAP: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
FORD MOTOR: McCarthy Tetrault Attorney Discusses Class Action

FRANKLIN COUNTY, MO: Mo. App. Flips Judgment in Blankenship Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Packs
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Cantor Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Keeter Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
GLOBAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Claims in Constantinou Partly Upheld

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk XP IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Toss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Bid in Uber Suit Pending

GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, McCready Says
GRIDDY ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Electricity Price Hike
GULF COAST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barnum Suit Claims
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, McKeon Suit Says
HAWAII: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Kelley Suit

HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL: Faces Pitre FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
HIGHBTU LIMITED: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fischler Says
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Bid to Remand Gaus to State Court Denied
HOLLYWOOD BED: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, Melgar Alleges
HONDA MOTOR: Class Action Over Defective CR-V Windshields Tossed

HORNELL BREWING: Thur Sues Over False "All Natural" Product Ad
HUNT & HENRIQUES: $126K Sanction Against Attorneys in Smith Flipped
HY-VEE INC: July 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
IMMUNOVANT INC: Faces Pitman Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
IMMUNOVANT INC: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 20 Deadline

INTUIT INC: Federal Judge Rejects $40M Settlement, Calls It Unfair
JAVITCH BLOCK: Redman Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
JETRO HOLDINGS: Jean-Pierre Seeks Reimbursement for Uniform Upkeep
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens-Related Suit Underway
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ELMIRON(R) Related Suits

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
JOSHUA J. ENTERPRISE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Sinclair Claims
KAGAN LUBIC: Faces Hancock FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letters
KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit

LA CROSSE, WI: Lawsuit Filed Against Forever Chemical Manufacturers
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Romero Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 3 Deadline

MEDIATION RECOVERY: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MEDNAX INC: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Nielsen Claims
MISSISSIPPI: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Alexander Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Substances Underway

MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
MOUNTAIN F. ENTERPRISES: Faces Place Suit in Calif. State Court
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Verger Sues Over Decline in Securities Price
NATIONAL WHOLESALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Suit Says

NATIXIS INVESTMENT: Faces Waldner ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan
NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Chacon Sues Over Medical Information Data Breach
NEWREZ LLC: Faces Mojarro FCRA Suit Over Misreporting of Mortgage
NURTURE INC: Faces Smith $5MM Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
NVIDIA CORP: Court Tosses Iron Workers' First Amended Complaint

OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
OLIN CORP: Unit Faces Suits Over Sale of Caustic Soda in Canada
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Frayre Employment Suit in California
ONTRAK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Class Action

ONTRAK INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ORBIT ENERGY: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Grainger Class Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM: Mattress Contains Fiberglass, Watkins Suit Alleges
PACCAR INC: Continues to Defend Claims Related to EC Investigation

PAWNEE LEASING: Faces PoshVille $5MM Suit in C.D. California
PAYPAL INC: Cal. App. Affirms Stipulated Judgment in Chen Suit
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Faces Kupiec Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Unlawfully Uses Names in Ads, Kupiec Alleges
PETROBRAS BRASILEIRO: Investor Mulls Suit Over Market Value Loss

PETROCHOICE LLC: Class in Gravely FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
PFIZER INC: Reconsider Bid in Burlington OK'd, Relief Sought Denied
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Toss ERISA Related Suit Pending
RECORDQUEST LLC: Dismissal of Smith's Statutory Claim Reversed
ROLLING HILLS: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits
ROSE HOOK: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Managers

SEABOARD CORP: All Claims in Pork Antitrust Litigation Junked
SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits Over SPTC Services to Stanford Trust Ongoing
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
SERFACE CARE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SHURTAPE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosario Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA
SIGNATURE RETAIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Gee Labor Class Suit
SISTINA RESTAURANT: Quaglia Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SMITH & WESSON: Product Liability Negligence Claims Can Proceed
SNICKERS INC: Improperly Pays Restaurant Servers, Grzes Suit Claims

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Klein Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
SP PLUS: Moleon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: McNeal's Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition Nixed
STAPLES CONTRACT: Faces Cisneros Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations
STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Auto Insurance Premiums

STURM RUGER: 6th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Primus Group Suit
SUNRISE GLOBAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNSET VALET PARKING: Dattus Slams Retalliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES: Keech Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy
SWAN SURFACES: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Barton BIPA Class Suit

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
T.A. REMAINDER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
TARA MATERIALS: Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRIP CONSULTANTS: Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz's 2nd Bid to Amend Complaint Partly Granted
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Wiggins Sues Over Dove's Misleading Ads
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Florida Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Tom v. EEOC
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Doctor

UNUM GROUP: Appeal in Tennessee Securities Class Suit Pending
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
VELODYNE LIDAR: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
VIKING GROUP: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Crace Granted

W.B. MASON: Faces Atlantic Coast Suit Over Counterfeit Masks
WALGREEN CO: Claims in Eidmann Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
WELCH FOODS: Augustine Sues Over Mislabeled Grape Juice Products
WILLOWS INN: To Pay $600K to Settle Suit Over Wage Theft
WISCONSIN SPECIALTY: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says

WORLDPAC INC: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Santos Says
YUM-YUM TOO: Kitchen Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Securities Suit Tossed With Leave to Amend
ZION FARM: Faces Baten Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

                            *********

3927 VAN BUREN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. 3927 Van Buren, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; Paligroup Management, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21-SM-CV00327 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 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
Palihotel Culver City located at 3927 Van Buren Pl., Culver City,
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 cbodily in
California, the Plaintiff went to the Palihotel Culver City
reservation Website at
https://www.palisociety.com/hotels/culver-city 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 at Palihotel Culver
City. 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 suit says.

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.[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


3M COMPANY: Holland Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALONZA HOLLAND, 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-00617-RMG
(D.S.C., March 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

                 - and –

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

99 CENTS: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration in McGuire Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE McGUIRE, Plaintiff and Respondent v. 99 CENTS
ONLY STORES LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B301863 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division One, reversed the trial court's order denying the
company's motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant and appellant 99 Cents ("company") challenges the trial
court's determination that the company waived its right to enforce
an arbitration agreement between the company and one of its former
employees, the Plaintiff and Respondent McGuire.  The company
appeals from an order denying, based on such waiver, the company's
motion to compel arbitration of McGuire's individual claims in his
lawsuit alleging Labor Code violations on both an individual and
classwide basis, as well as pursuant to a Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA") claim.

The company operates retail stores in several states.  In 2010, the
company hired McGuire as an at-will employee at one of its stores
in California.  At the time it hired McGuire, the company required
new employees to enter into an arbitration agreement.  
In 2018, McGuire filed a lawsuit against the company, both
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, alleging
wage and overtime violations under the Labor Code as well as a
unlawful business practices claim under Business and Professions
Code section 17200.  McGuire later amended his complaint to add a
claim under the PAGA.  The PAGA claim is based on the same Labor
Code violations that underlie his class action claims, although the
time frame for the PAGA claim spanned one year, rather than the
four-year putative class period.

In a joint statement filed in anticipation of the initial status
conference, the company informed the court that McGuire "and/or
other members of the putative class" had signed agreements to
arbitrate, and that the company "may file an early motion in
connection with the arbitration issue."  Ultimately, the company
was unable to locate any arbitration agreement with McGuire that
contained a class action waiver.  The company thus did not
initially seek to compel arbitration, and instead answered both the
complaint and first amended complaint.

In support of its motion to compel individual arbitration, the
company explained to the court and now repeats on appeal that it
chose to answer the complaint, rather than move to compel
arbitration at the outset of proceedings, based on concerns
regarding the company's ability to compel to arbitration only
McGuire's individual claims (and avoid classwide arbitration),
given the lack of a class action waiver in the agreement.

The parties agreed to participate in mediation to be held on June
5, 2019, and to stay any further formal discovery pending the
outcome of that mediation.  Because of their forthcoming mediation,
the parties also jointly requested and received an extension of the
class certification deadline to Oct. 3, 2019.

On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) _
U.S._ [139 S.Ct. 1407, 203 L.Ed.2d 636].  The high court held that
an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous as to the availability
of class arbitration cannot provide the necessary contractual basis
for permitting class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") -- even when state law rules of contract interpretation
suggest it can.  The company and McGuire had litigated the case for
14 months before the company filed its motion, during which time
the parties exchanged some classwide discovery.

Within two weeks of the Supreme Court's decision, the company
informed McGuire it intended to file a motion to compel McGuire's
individual claims to arbitration.  That same day, the company filed
its motion to compel individual arbitration.  The motion argued
that it would have been futile for the company to seek to compel
individual arbitration prior to the United States Supreme Court's
Lamps Plus decision, given that the agreement does not contain an
express class action waiver.  McGuire opposed the motion,
disagreeing with the company's futility arguments and arguing the
company's delay in bringing the motion significantly prejudiced
McGuire, such that the company had waived its right to
arbitration.

In advance of the continued hearing, the trial court issued a
tentative ruling denying the company's motion.  The tentative
ruling included several factual findings to support the court's
conclusion that the company's delay in bringing the motion had been
unreasonable and had prejudiced McGuire.  The court ultimately
adopted this tentative ruling as its final ruling on the motion.

The company timely appealed the court's denial of its motion to
compel individual arbitration.  It offers three primary arguments
why the court's waiver analysis was erroneous and its ruling on the
motion to compel individual arbitration should be reversed.  First,
the company contends that the court incorrectly rejected -- or, in
the alternative, did not sufficiently consider -- the futility of
seeking individual arbitration before Lamps Plus.  Second, the
company contends that the court's factual findings are insufficient
as a matter of law to support prejudice.  Third, as an alternative,
the company challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
those factual findings.

In response to the company's prejudice arguments, McGuire
identifies two factual findings he argues establish that the
company's delay was sufficiently prejudicial to support waiver: the
delay was "for a long period," and, as a result of it, McGuire
provided and analyzed extensive class claim-related information and
discovery, something that would not have occurred in individual
arbitration (or in subsequent litigation of the nonarbitrable PAGA
claims, at least not to as great an extent).  McGuire argues this
generated unnecessary expense for McGuire and a windfall of
information for the company.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court erred in
concluding that, by litigating the matter during that 14-month
period, the company waived its right to seek individual
arbitration.  Neither the court's factual findings nor the record
supports the prejudice required to establish such waiver.
First, the Appellate Court finds that it does not support that the
company's delay was unreasonable and thus prejudicial.  The
considerable risk of class arbitration prior to Lamps Plus provides
a reasonable explanation for the timing of the company's motion,
whether or not that risk rose to the level of making such a motion
futile.  Moreover, the trial court did not find, and nothing
suggests, that the company sought or gained any improper tactical
advantage by waiting to enforce the arbitration agreement.

The Court disagrees with McGuire that the company wanting to avoid
class arbitration under an agreement the company viewed as
authorizing only individual arbitration constitutes an effort to
gain an improper tactical advantage.  Nothing prohibits arbitration
agreements covering only individual claims, and the company was
entitled to pursue an outcome consistent with the company's
interpretation of its arbitration agreement with McGuire.

Nor does the exchange of classwide discovery and McGuire's work
analyzing class claims support a finding of prejudice, the
Appellate Court opines.  It says McGuire bore a heavy burden below
of proving that these efforts would not have occurred, had the
company moved earlier to compel arbitration.  But McGuire failed to
provide a record from which the trial court could reasonably infer
how much of these efforts, if any, exceeded what he would have done
to pursue his PAGA claim -- a nonarbitrable representative cause of
action based on the exact same alleged conduct and Labor Code
violations as McGuire's class claims.  Thus, McGuire's showing
below was insufficient as a matter of law to meet his burden of
establishing prejudice by the company's delay in pursuing
individual arbitration.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the order to the
extent it denied the company's request to compel McGuire's
individual claims to arbitration.  Upon remand, it instructed the
trial court to issue a new order granting the motion to compel
McGuire's individual claims to arbitration and to rule on the
company's request to stay all other claims, pending the outcome of
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4r934xbh from Leagle.com.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, Katherine M. Forster --
Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- Elizabeth R. Dyer --
Elizabeth.Dyer@mto.com -- and David W. Moreshead --
David.Moreshead@mto.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern, Launa Adolph, Kiran Prasad,
and Shooka Dadashzadeh, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


AARON'S INC: Aguirre FLSA Suit Transferred from S.D. to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS AGUIRRE, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, v. AARON'S, INC. DBA
AARON'S SALES & LEASE OWNERSHIP, a Georgia corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles) on Nov. 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01441-MWF-RAO to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Standards Standards Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misclassified him and
similarly situated employees as exempt, failed to provide them with
meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to
pay premium wages for unprovided meal and/or rest periods, failed
to pay overtime wages, subjected vested vacation pay to unlawful
forfeiture, failed to provide them with accurate written wage
statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages
following separation of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a store manager from
2009 to May 2016.

The Aaron's is an American lease-to-own retailer. The company
focuses on leases and retail sales of furniture, electronics,
appliances, and computers.[BN]

Plaintiff Carlos Aguirre is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

Intervenor Plaintiff Arminda Sevilla is represented by:

          Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855-3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
          E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law

Defendant Aaron's Inc. is represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Michael W. Stevens, Esq.
          Minal Haymond, Esq.
          Tatyana Shmygol, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          560 Mission Street Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com

ACCELLION INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Zebelman Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN ZEBELMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ACCELLION, INC., a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 5:21-cv-01203 (N..D. Calif., Feb. 18, 2021) is a class
action suit against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that was
stored on and/or shared with the Defendant's "Accellion FTA" file
transfer service, including names, social security numbers and/or
driver's license or state identification numbers, dates of birth,
bank 10 account numbers and bank routing numbers, and/or places of
employment (personally identifiable information or "PII").

According to the Defendant's Website, Accellion FTA "helps
worldwide enterprises transfer large and sensitive files securely
using a 100% private cloud, on-premise or hosted." The Defendant
knew or should have known that its customers included law firms,
government agencies, and universities and that these customers
could and would use Accellion FTA as advertised, namely, "to
transfer large and sensitive files," including sensitive files
containing PII, and that it was important and necessary that such
large and sensitive files be transferred "securely."

Notwithstanding Defendant's representation that Accellion FTA would
transfer large and sensitive files securely, in December 2020, an
unauthorized person accessed files and data that numerous customers
of Defendant had stored on or shared with Accellion FTA (the "Data
Breach"), the suit says.

The compromised files and data contained the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members, including names, social security numbers and/or
driver's license or state identification numbers, dates of birth,
bank account numbers and bank routing numbers, and/or places of
employment.

The exposed PII of Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on the
dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the
unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. The Plaintiff and Class
Members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened
here by the loss of Social Security numbers. This PII was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and the failure to protect PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates
federal and state statutes, added the suit.

Plaintiff Susan Zebelman is a citizen of Colorado residing in
Boulder County, Colorado. Her PII was exposed in the Data Breach
because the University of Colorado used Accellion FTA to store
and/or share Plaintiff's PII.

The Data Breach occurred on or around December 20, 2020. The
Defendant claims it notified its Accellion FTA customers of the
Data Breach on December 23, 2020. On January 12, 2021, the
Defendant issued a press release stating that it had resolved 3 a
vulnerability in Accellion FTI and "released a patch within 72
hours to the less than 50 customers affected." On January 15, 2021,
the Reserve Bank of New Zealand announced that it was one of the
Accellion FTA customers affected by the Data Breach. On January 25,
2021, The Australian Securities and Investments
Commission announced that it was one of the Accellion FTA customers
affected by the Data Breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.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

ALAN FURMAN: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alan Furman & Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Alan Furman & Co.,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01178 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Alan Furman & Company -- https://www.alanfurman.com/ -- is one of
the largest discounters of fine watches and precious jewelry in the
United States.[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


ALKERMES PLC: Eastern District of New York Tosses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ALKERMES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 18-CV-7410 (LDH) (RML) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
Lashann DeArcy Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim.

Lead Plaintiff Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, brings the instant putative class action against
Individual Defendants Richard F. Pops, James M. Frates, Elliot
Ehrich, and Blair C. Jackson; and Alkermes, asserting claims for
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration is tasked with ensuring that drugs and devices
are safe and effective for their intended uses.  Companies seeking
to commence a clinical investigation of a new drug must submit an
Investigational New Drug Application ("IND") to the FDA.  A
clinical investigation is generally divided into three phases.

After the three clinical trial phases are complete, but prior to
filing a New Drug Application ("NDA"), a sponsoring company meets
with the FDA to exchange information about the proposed drug
marketing application.  Once a pre-NDA meeting is had, the
sponsoring company may then formally request FDA approval of a drug
for marketing in the United States through submission of an NDA.
The FDA has 60 days after an NDA is received to decide whether to
file the NDA for review.  If the FDA determines that the filing of
the NDA should be refused, the FDA will notify the applicant in
writing ("RTF letter") and state the reason for the refusal.

At such time, the applicant is provided an opportunity to amend its
application and resubmit it to the FDA for review.  Once the review
is complete, the FDA will either approve the NDA or issue a
complete response letter rejecting the application.  Approvals are
not granted, however, until after the FDA "determines that the drug
meets the statutory standards for safety and effectiveness,
manufacturing and controls, and labeling."

Alkermes is a global biopharmaceutical company that uses scientific
expertise and proprietary technologies to research, develop, and
commercialize pharmaceutical products that are designed to address
unmet medical needs of patients in major therapeutic areas.  At
some point prior to February 2011, Alkermes began developing ALKS
5461, an opioid combination product originally intended to treat
Major Depressive Disorder ("MDD") and cocaine dependence.  Had it
been approved, ALKS 5461 would have been the first drug in a new
class to treat MDD.

On Feb. 17, 2011, Alkermes participated in a pre-IND meeting with
the FDA concerning the development of ALKS 5461.  During that
meeting, Alkermes described its plan for an 8-week safety and
tolerability study and disclosed its plan to use a Sequential
Parallel Comparison Design ("SPCD") testing method.  The FDA voiced
no objection to a SPCD proof-of-concept study, but strongly
encouraged Alkermes to provide a detailed statistical analysis plan
and seek feedback prior to initiating the trial if they intended to
use the study to support an efficacy claim."  Alkermes clarified,
however, that the SPCD study was intended to be used as a
proof-of-concept study, not to establish efficacy."

On April 8, 2011, Alkermes filed an IND with the FDA for the use of
ALKS 5461 for the treatment of MDD.  A subsequent IND was filed on
June 11, 2011, this time limited to cocaine dependence.  Then, in
January 2012, Alkermes announced positive results from a "Phase
1/Phase 2 study," of ALKS 5461 in 32 patients with MDD.  Upon
completion of Phase 2, in April 2013, Alkermes announced that the
study had positive results, in that the drug demonstrated reduced
depressive symptoms across a range of standard measures and was
generally well-tolerated. At that time, Alkermes also announced its
intention to request a meeting with the FDA and to "advance ALKS
5461 into a pivotal development program."  Sometime in late April
2013 Alkermes abandoned its intention to use ALKS 5461 to treat
cocaine dependence.

In October 2013, Alkermes announced that it had successfully
completed its End-of-Phase 2 interactions with the FDA.  It also
announced that the FDA had granted ALKS 5461 "Fast Track"3 status
for the adjunctive treatment of MDD in patients with an inadequate
response to standard therapies.  It was expected that the Phase 3
study would commence in the first quarter of 2014, with
approximately 1,500 patients expected to enroll.

Sometime in late 2013, Alkermes requested an End of Phase 2 meeting
with FDA and provided the agency with a related background package.
In turn, the FDA provided Alkermes written responses, which
expressed its concerns about the planned SPCD analysis.  Upon
receiving the FDA's responses, Alkermes withdrew its meeting
request and informed the FDA that its written responses addressed
the company's questions. Subsequently, Alkermes submitted the
results of its three Phase 3 protocols, and the long-term safety
protocol to the FDA.  Following Alkermes' submission, the FDA
advised the company to monitor for certain effects of the drugs,
and refine the time points for administration.

On May 12, 2015, Alkermes requested a meeting with the FDA in an
effort to reach agreement on the Statistical Analysis Plans for
Phase 3 studies ALK5461-205 and ALK5461-206.  On July 24, 2015, the
FDA provided a written response to Alkermes' meeting request.  On
Sept. 19, 2016, Alkermes submitted an amendment to the statistical
analysis plan and protocol for an upcoming study.

Subsequently, on Sept. 26, 2016, Alkermes met with the FDA to share
preliminary results from studies it had conducted in connection
with Phase 3.  During that meeting, Alkermes "acknowledged that
neither study met its prespecified primary endpoint and inquired
about any additional analyses that could be conducted."  The FDA
had no recommendations but acknowledged that the additional
analyses that Alkermes had already conducted could be informative
for subsequent studies.

Because the Sept. 19, 2016 amendments to the statistical analysis
plan were submitted just seven days prior to the September 26
meeting, the FDA was unable to review the amendments in advance and
discussion on the amendments was tabled until a Feb. 13, 2017,
guidance meeting.  The FDA recommended that the Applicant submit a
dossier for the MADRS-6, including reliability, validity, scoring
instructions, rationale for item selection, and justification for
its use in antidepressant efficacy trials.

On April 24, 2017, Alkermes submitted the dossier on the MADRS-6
previously requested by the FDA.  It submitted the final portion of
the NDA for ALKS 5461 on Jan. 31, 2018.  The FDA "initially refused
to file the application," but ultimately agreed to review the NDA,
after Alkermes "clarified the analyses intended to support its
efficacy claim."  On April 2, 2018, Alkermes announced it has
received an RTF letter from the FDA regarding its NDA for ALKS
5461.

Following, on Oct. 30, 2018, the FDA released the Briefing Document
regarding ALKS 5461's NDA.  On Nov. 1, 2018, the FDA Advisory
Committees voted against the approval of ALKS 5461.

The Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  They
contend that the Plaintiff's claim is ripe for dismissal on a
number of grounds, including the Plaintiff's failure to
sufficiently allege that the Defendants made any material
misstatement or omission, acted with scienter, or caused any loss
that the Plaintiff suffered.  That said, the Defendants also
maintain that the Court need not resolve each of these issues as
the lack of scienter alone justifies dismissal.

The Plaintiff argues that the Individual Defendants' roles at
Alkermes alongside the fact that ALKS 5461 was a 'blockbuster' drug
in which the Company had invested significant resources bolster an
inference that the Individual Defendants either knew or recklessly
disregarded the concerns the FDA conveyed to the Company during the
Class Period.  It further argues that the Defendants' contention
that these highly placed executives were unaware of the concerns
conveyed by the FDA strains credulity.

Judge Hall agrees with the Defendants.  As a threshold matter, she
says the Plaintiff has overstated the import of the information --
the "concerns" -- conveyed by the FDA to Defendants.  Indeed, she
is troubled by the Plaintiff's blatant mischaracterization of the
November 2018 FDA briefing document, upon which they rely
exclusively to support their argument for scienter.  No such
language appears in the FDA briefing document.

Ultimately, none of the interactions between the FDA and Alkermes
support a strong inference of scienter.  Despite expressing
concerns regarding Alkermes' trial methodology, the FDA nonetheless
permitted the drug to proceed through various stages of approval
prior to its ultimate denial of the application.  Put differently,
the "FDA's negative feedback was muted by a series of encouraging
regulatory decisions" which allowed the drug to proceed through the
approval process prior to the ultimate disapproval.

On these facts, the Judge cannot discern a strong inference of
scienter.  Indeed, the complaint fails to support even an inference
of fraudulent intent that is "cogent and at least as compelling as
the opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent."  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claims under the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 are dismissed.

The Plaintiff fails to oppose the Defendants' arguments for
dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim.  For this reason, the claim
is deemed abandoned and therefore dismissed.  Notably, however,
even if he Plaintiff's claims were not dismissed on these grounds,
having found no scienter, any claim under Section 20 of the
Exchange Act cannot lie.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hall granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  She
dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3dsxn2zn from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Retains Portions of Tips for Drivers, Miller Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash., Feb. 17, 2021) is a class action
brought on behalf of individuals who have been "Amazon Flex"
delivery drivers for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
Logistics, Inc., and who have been subject to the unlawful
practices.

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
Jennifer Miller alleges that Amazon has violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, by unfairly and
deceptively retaining portions of tips that belonged to the
delivery drivers.

Ms. Miller seeks actual damages, exemplary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, and any other relief that the Court
deems proper, all as provided for by law.

Plaintiff Jennifer Miller is a resident of Massachusetts, and she
worked as an Amazon Flex delivery driver from late 2018 to March
2020, driving and doing deliveries in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire and around New England for Amazon.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607‐3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488‐2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com

AMCO INSURANCE: Bake's Place Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
B AND F ENTERPRISES NORTHWEST, LLC dba BAKE'S PLACE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMCO
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00272 (W.D. Wash.,
March 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach
of insurance contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has refused to pay the
Plaintiff's losses and expenses resulting from the interruption of
the Plaintiff's business by COVID-19 and/or orders. The Defendant
issued all risk insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including a
businessowners policy and related endorsements, insuring the
Plaintiff's property and business, and providing related coverages.
The policy coverages issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
include Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, Extended
Business Income Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage. The
Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim for insurance benefits and
made no meaningful investigation of its claim or its loss, the suit
says.

B and F Enterprises Northwest, LLC, doing business as Bake's Place,
is an owner and operator of restaurant, bar, and private event
space in downtown Bellevue, Washington.

AMCO Insurance Company is an insurance company with its principal
place of business in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
         Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
         Ian S. Birk, Esq.
         Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
         Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
         Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
         Nathan Nanfelt, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
         E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                 gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com
                 nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

                  - and –

         Alison Chase, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         801 Garden Street, Suite 301
         Santa Barbara, CA 93101
         Telephone: (805) 456-1496
         Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
         E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com

                  - and –

         Stephen J. Crane, Esq.
         CRANE DUNHAM PLLC
         3600 15th Ave W, Suite 200
         Seattle, WA 98119-1330
         Telephone: (206) 292-9090
         Facsimile: (206) 292-9736
         E-mail: scrane@cranedunham.com

AMGUARD INSURANCE: Wills Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Pauline Wills v. AmGUARD
Insurance Company, Case No. 21-L-000054, was removed from the
Madison County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) on Feb. 18, 2021.

The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00189-MAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from contract-related issues and is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty.

Amguard is an insurance firm. The Company offers property and
casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Byron, Esq.
          BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC
          411 St. Louis Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 655-0600
          Facsimile: (618) 655-4004
          E-mail: cwb@bcpklaw.com

The Defendant AmGUARD is represented by:

          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC - EDWARDSVILLE
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: tab@heplerbroom.com

APA CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of APA Corporation f/k/a Apache Corporation (NASDAQ:
APA) between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 26, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Apache securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Apache class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2040.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. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 26, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Apache intentionally used
unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of
available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) 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; (3) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Apache class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2040.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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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]

APACHE CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Apache Corporation.
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ:APA)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13386&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021
Class Period: September 7, 2016 - March 13, 2020

Allegations against APA include 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.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com

SOURCE: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong [GN]

APPLE INC: Bid to Strike Ocampo's Second Amended Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN OCAMPO, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-05857-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Strike the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 19, 2020, Plaintiff Ocampo, then the sole plaintiff in the
matter, filed his initial putative class action complaint for
damages alleging causes of action for violations of various
consumer fraud and advertising laws.  Thereafter, the Parties
stipulated that the Defendant's response to or motion to dismiss
the original complaint would be due no later than Oct. 26, 2020.

On Oct. 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Defendant
that they intended to file an amended complaint.  The next day the
Parties agreed to a stipulation allowing Plaintiff Ocampo to file
an amended complaint by Nov. 23, 2020.  Additionally, they
stipulated that the Defendant did not need to respond to the
original complaint and also agreed to a briefing schedule if it
were to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, Plaintiff Ocampo and the new
additionally named Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
("FAC") on Nov. 23, 2020.  On Dec. 23, 2020, the Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' causes of action for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Twenty-one days later, the Plaintiffs filed their SAC without
opposing party's written consent or the Court's leave.  The
Defendant filed the instant motion to strike in response.

The Defendant moves to strike the Plaintiffs' SAC arguing they have
already amended their original complaint once as a matter of course
and thus, needed either written consent from the Defendant or leave
of the Court prior to filing the SAC.

Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs received written consent to
file the FAC from the Defendant as seen in the Stipulation.
Although the Defendant argues that the Stipulation was a limited
scheduling agreement meant to give it relief from its obligation to
respond to the original complaint, it expressly states that the
Parties had stipulated and agreed to Plaintiff Ocampo filing the
FAC by Nov. 23, 2020.  Additionally, the Parties made reference to
the Stipulation in their subsequent Rule amended complaint, the
Plaintiff intended on filing an amended complaint by Nov. 23,
2020.

The filing of the FAC did not exhaust the Plaintiffs' right as a
matter of course to later amend after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b), the Judge holds.  He says the Plaintiffs were permitted
to amend the complaint in whatever order, so long as they complied
with Rule 15.  In this instance, the Plaintiffs complied with Rule
15 because the Defendant provided written consent to the FAC and
afterwards, the Plaintiffs filed their SAC.  The Plaintiffs timely
filed their SAC as a matter of course as the SAC was filed 21 days
after the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss.  Therefore, the
Judge finds the Plaintiffs' SAC was permissible under Rule 15(a).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila denies the Defendant's
motion to strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  He dneies
as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, and thus, the Second Amended Complaint is the operative
complaint. Pursuant to the Parties' joint stipulation regarding the
Motion to Strike, the Defendant will have 10 days after the date of
the Order to file a responsive pleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2a9c9z95 from Leagle.com.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders publicly traded company
Astrazeneca Plc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

Investors Affected : May 21, 2020 - November 20, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Astrazeneca Plc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the Company's
COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical
manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) clinical
trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the
validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the
clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (c)
certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a
second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the
second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled
to be delivered according to the original trial design; (d)
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (e) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e)
above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in
accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards
and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the
clinical trials was of limited utility; and (g) as a result of
(a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial
use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=13388&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770

SOURCE: The Gross Law Firm [GN]

ATHENA CLUB: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Slade Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. ATHENA CLUB HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01517 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Athena provides to their
non-disabled customers through http//:www.Athenaclub.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant controls and operates Athenaclub.com. in New York
State and throughout the United States. Athenaclub.com is a
commercial website that offers products for online sale. The online
store allows the user to browse and learn about body care, period
care, and wellness products, make purchases, and perform a variety
of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

ATHENEX INC: Gupta Sues Over 55% Drop of Common Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
NAVEEN GUPTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENEX, INC., RUDOLF KWAN, JOHNSON Y.N.
LAU, and TIMOTHY COOK, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00337
(W.D.N.Y., March 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Athenex Inc.'s business in
order to artificially inflate prices of shares of the company's
common stock between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data included in
the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar New Drug Application (NDA)
presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results
of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19
conducted by blinded independent centra review (BICR); (iii) the
BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced
unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR; (iv) that the company'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 Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) would recommended a new such clinical
trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve the company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a
result, the company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

When the FDA determined that additional risk mitigation strategies
are needed for the NDA to improve toxicity, the price of Athenex's
shares plummeted from their February 26, 2021 closing price of
$12.10 per share to a March 1, 2021 close of just $5.46 each, the
suit adds.

Athenex, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company headquartered
in Buffalo, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: steti@blockleviton.com

ATHENEX INC: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX) filed a class action complaint
against the Company and its officers and directors for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between August 7,
2019 and February 26, 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 the Company's main drug
candidates is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment
of metastatic breast cancer.

If you suffered a loss due to Athenex, Inc.'s misconduct, click
here.

Athenex, Inc. (ATNX) Misled Investors About the Efficacy of its
Lead Drug Candidate and the Likelihood the FDA Would Approve its
New Drug Application

According to the complaint, 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 (the "Study"). The Company stated that it
was preparing its New Drug Application ("NDA") for submission to
the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") and touted their Study over
the next several months.

On September 1, 2020, Athenex announced that the FDA had accepted
for filing its NDA for Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar in metastatic
breast cancer with priority review with a target action date of
February 28, 2021, and that "the FDA has communicated that it is
not currently planning to hold an advisory committee meeting to
discuss the application." On December 9, 2020, Athenex announced it
had presented updated Study data at the 2020 San Antonio Breast
Cancer Symposium that "support the clinical rationale for oral
paclitaxel as an efficacious and tolerable treatment option for
people living with metastatic breast cancer."

Despite these positive statements, on March 1, 2021, Athenex
announced that the FDA issued a CRL, which indicates that the
review cycle for an application is complete and that the
application is not ready for approval in its present form.
According to the Company, "the FDA indicated its concern of safety
risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related
sequalae on the Oral Paclitaxel arm compared with IV paclitaxel
arm," among others. The FDA "recommended that Athenex conduct a new
adequate and well-conducted clinical trial . . ."

On this news, Athenex shares plummeted approximately 55% from
$12.10 per share on February 26, 2021, to $5.46 per share on March
1, 2021.

If you purchased shares of Athenex, Inc. (ANTX) between August 7,
2019 and February 26, 2021, you have until May 3, 2021, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.

Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against Athenex Inc. settles
or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

ATHENEX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Athenex, Inc. ("Athenex"
or the "Company") ( ATNX) and certain of its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Athenex
common stock between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Athenex is a "global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs." One of Athenex's main
drug candidates is Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar, designed to
treat metastatic breast cancer.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements by failing to
disclose in its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the Federal Drug
Administration ("FDA") that its drug presented a safety risk to
patients; that its drug's efficacy was in question; that the
Company's testing and review processes were both flawed and
introduced unmeasured bias and influence; and that, as a result, it
was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA. the lawsuit
also alleges the Company made misleading statements touting the
effectiveness of its drug, its strong communications with the FDA
throughout the drug-development process, and the imminence of
realizing its commercial goals for the drug.

On March 1, 2021 the Company announced that the FDA had issued a
Complete Response Letter for the drug stating that it "recommended
that Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical
trial."

On this news, the price of Athenex's shares plummeted from the
February 26, 2021 close price of $21.10 per share to a close price
of just $5.46 on March 1, 2021, a one-day drop of nearly 55%.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Athenex common stock between August 7, 2019 and
February 26, 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 May 3, 2021.

                    About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 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.

Attorney Advertising

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]

ATLAS OIL: Wilson Seeks OT Pay for Employees Under FLSA, NMMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Atlas Oil Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00142-GBW-KRS
(D.N.M., Feb. 19, 2021) is a civil action brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven day workweek while working for the
Defendant paid on a day rate and/or hourly basis.

The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees who worked as a Frac Driver, Frac Tech, FAS
Operator, and/or Single Operator for the Defendant on a day rate
and/or hourly basis who, like Plaintiff, were not paid time and
one-half their respective rates of pay for all hours worked over 40
in each seven day workweek for the time period of three years
preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward.

The Plaintiff and the Class/Collective Action Members seek all
damages available under the FLSA and NMMWA, including back wages,
liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Gregg County, Texas. The
Plaintiff has worked for Defendant from June 20, 2017 through
present. The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid employee until Defendant
began paying a day rate on April 26, 2020.

Atlas Oil is a premier national fuel supply and distribution
company with 24/7/365 operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Taneska Jones, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net
                  tjones@eeoc.net

AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Faces Trevino DPPA Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01567 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2021) is a class action suit
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and millions other individuals
in California (Class Members) whose private and confidential
information, including names, addresses, license plate numbers, and
vehicle identification numbers (VIN) (collectively, Personal
Information) were knowingly stored by AFTS on its unsecured systems
and accessed by and disclosed to unauthorized third parties during
a ransomware attack (the Data Breach).

According to the complaint, reports indicate that Personal
Information for as many as 38 million Class Members, which the
California Department of Motor Vehicles (California DMV) provided
to AFTS, including the last 20 months of California vehicle
registration records, may have been compromised in the Data Breach.


The harm caused to California citizens by the Data Breach is not
speculative -- already, reports are indicating that a criminal
"ransomware gang" operating under the name "Cuba" is selling off
data stolen during the Data Breach on the dark web, the suit says.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members'
privacy has been invaded, their Personal Information is now in the
hands of criminals (who are already selling the data), they face a
substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraud, and they
must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves
from such identity theft and fraud, alleges the suit.

The acts of AFTS were in violation of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA).

Plaintiff Barbara Trevino is a citizen of California and resides in
Los Angeles County. On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff registered her
vehicle with the California DMV.

Defendant Automatic Funds Transfer Services, Inc., has a principal
place of business located in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
         Theodore Maya, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505-4521
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

              - and -

         Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

BACKBEATRAGS LLC: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Backbeatrags LLC. The
case is captioned as Kareem Nisbett v. Backbeatrags LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01408-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

Backbeatrags is in the women's clothing stores industry in Los
Angeles, California.[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

BAJCO INT'L: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Valesh FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH VALESH, Plaintiff v. BAJCO INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-28 DRL-JPK (N.D. Ind.), Judge
Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, grants the Plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify a pizza delivery driver class.

The case was recently assigned to Judge Leichty.  Mr. Valesh says
the Defendants ("Bajco Group") violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Indiana law by failing to pay him minimum wages as a pizza
delivery driver at Papa John's, locations that Bajco Group
operates.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the alleged FLSA
violations under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for similarly situated
pizza delivery drivers from all of Papa John's locations that Bajco
Group operates.  He seeks to notify "all current and former
delivery drivers who worked at any Bajco Group Papa John's Pizza
location within the three years prior to the filing of this Class
Action Complaint and the date of final judgment in the matter."

Bajco Group didn't respond.

Judge Leichty opines that Mr. Valesh meets his burden through his
declaration that makes a modest factual showing that other delivery
drivers exist who have been subject to similar terms of employment
and compensation by Bajco Group.  Papa John's pizza delivery
drivers complete essentially the same duties.

Based on his own personal observations, Mr. Valesh says drivers are
paid minimum wage minus a tip credit for the hours worked
delivering pizza, and at or around minimum wage for the non-tipped
hours worked inside the store.  He says they drive their own cars
for work, but Bajco Group doesn't reimburse them for their actual
expenses or at the IRS standard business mileage rate.  Instead,
Bajco Group reimburses the drivers at a flat amount per delivery
order.  He says he and other delivery drivers were required to pay
for the cost of a functioning cell phone to make deliveries.

Moreover, Mr. Valesh says he observed other drivers being subject
to the same terms, spoke to drivers about the terms of their
employment, and spoke to managers about the terms of employment for
delivery drivers.  He was never asked to provide records relating
to his automobile expenses nor did he ever see or hear any
coworkers being asked to provide records of expenses.  He completed
the same checkout process at the end of each night, and
occasionally saw other drivers complete this process as well.  Mr.
Valesh has been sent to other of Bajco Group's Papa John's stores
to pick up food and supplies to bring back to its Lafayette store,
and he says other drivers worked in multiple of Bajco Group's Papa
John's locations under the same terms.

The Judge concludes that Mr. Valesh made the modest factual showing
necessary for conditional certification -- that he and others are
similarly situated and subject to a common policy.  He accordingly
grants Mr. Valesh's request for conditional class certification.

The conditional class will consist of the following: "All current
and former delivery drivers who worked at any Bajco Group Papa
John's Pizza location within the three years prior to the filing of
this Class Action Complaint and the date of final judgment in this
matter."

The Judge will set a status conference thereafter to discuss the
form of notice and any objections to that notice, as well as any
alterations to the case schedule in light of this ruling.  He
orders the Defendants to provide contact information for all
potential opt-in Plaintiffs within 14 days of the Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2psjvhvf from Leagle.com.


BAYER AG: Outcry Grows Over Proposed Settlement of Cancer Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer victims are asking a federal judge overseeing thousands of
Roundup weed killer cancer lawsuits to reject a proposed settlement
that would allow the glyphosate-based herbicide to remain on store
shelves while shielding Bayer AG (OTCMKTS: BAYRY) from future
cancer lawsuits.

A motion filed by trial lawyers at Dallas-based Fears Nachawati Law
Firm shines a light on growing criticism of some plaintiffs'
lawyers who have already negotiated with Bayer AG to obtain
favorable settlements for their existing clients that - based on
the proposed settlement - would not be available to individuals not
yet diagnosed.

Under the proposed settlement described in the motion as "a one-way
street" that benefits only Bayer, individuals filing a cancer claim
after Feb. 3, 2021, could not participate in class-action
litigation and seek punitive damages in litigation. Instead, they
would be limited to compensation based on a multitiered formula.

The plaintiffs challenging the settlement include three individuals
who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after exposure to
Roundup and who had not filed a lawsuit by Feb. 3.

"It is fundamentally unfair, and at odds with basic due-process
protections, to force someone to opt out now when she has no idea
what her circumstances might be if she becomes injured," the motion
states.

"This proposed settlement is opposed by those most familiar with
the litigation of cases involving dangerous products like Roundup
because they recognize that this proposal would benefit Monsanto
and class counsel at the expense of millions of people exposed to
Roundup," the motion states. "This is not a real lawsuit, but an
effort to create an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the
guise of a class-action settlement."

"There is no good reason why the class is limited to those who have
already been exposed when Monsanto has no intention of stopping the
sale of Roundup, or changing its composition, so that thousands of
individuals will continue to run the risk of contracting
[non-Hodgkin's lymphoma] from Roundup through post-February 3, 2021
exposure. If this were a real lawsuit, why would any class
representative (or class counsel) create a wholly artificial
cut-off date and not include everyone who will be exposed to
Roundup in the future?"

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) is In re Roundup Products
Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dallas-based Fears Nachawati Law Firm represents more than
4,000 individual plaintiffs in active litigation against
Bayer and continues to investigate new claims on behalf
of those sickened after exposure to Roundup. For the past
three years, the law firm was ranked number one nationally in
product liability filings in federal court. For more
information, visit https://www.fnlawfirm.com/.

Contact:
Robert Tharp
Androvett Legal Media
214-458-4007 [GN]

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Farmers Sue Over Inflated Prices of Crop Inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEON PFAFF, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION,
SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.,
AND TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00462 (D. Minn., Feb. 19, 2021)
arises from an unlawful agreement between Defendants --
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of Crop Inputs -- to
artificially increase and fix the prices of seeds and crop
protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides (Crop Inputs) used by farmers.

The suit seeks to recover injunctive relief, treble damages, and
other relief as appropriate, based on the Defendants alleged
violation of federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition
laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the
several States.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent classes consisting of persons and
entities who purchased Crop Inputs, for their own use and not for
resale, in the United States from at least as early as January 1,
2014 through the present (the "Class Period") from the Defendants,
or through the Defendants' authorized retailers.

Defendants Bayer CropScience, Inc., Corteva, Inc., Syngenta
Corporation, and BASF Corporation (the Manufacturer Defendants),
together with Defendants Cargill Incorporated, Winfield Solutions,
LLC, Univar Solutions, Inc. (the Wholesaler Defendants), and
Defendants CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions Inc., Growmark Inc.,
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., Tenkoz Inc., and Federated
Co-Operatives Ltd. (the Retailer Defendants) have established a
secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices
inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of their
conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market information,
including transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison
shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and information
about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know
if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds
repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price, the
Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, the cost of Crop Inputs is increasing
at a significantly faster rate than profits from farmers' crop
yields. The skyrocketing Crop Inputs prices are causing farmers to
take on operating debt and often forcing them into bankruptcy,
creating a crisis situation in the agriculture community for
American farmers who are critical to the nation's food supply.
Neither the cost increases nor the price disparities are
attributable to any independent legitimate cause, such as weather
or other factors.

Beginning at least as earlier as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales
platforms launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow
farmers to view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop
Inputs, increasing price transparency. These online sales
platforms, including Farmers Business Network (FBN) and AgVend
Inc., became successful with farmers.

Viewing this success, Defendants allegedly conspired and
coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms
because of the threat they posed to Defendants' market position and
price control. For example, the Manufacturer Defendants and
Wholesaler Defendants agreed amongst themselves not to sell Crop
Inputs to FBN, and enforced strict discipline on Retailer
Defendants who failed to comply with the boycott. The Defendants
Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, and Corteva used audits and inspections of
their authorized retailers to ensure that online Crop Inputs sales
platforms were unable to obtain Crop Inputs from their authorized
retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          Samantha L. Greenberg, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 2110
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 784-1442
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com
                  sgreenberg@kmllp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
          Christopher V. Le, Esq.
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          4041 University Drive, Suite 500
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 764-8700
          E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
                  cle@straus-boies.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cantor Sues Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CANTOR, ASHLEY ALLEN, DOMINICK GROSSI, ANTHONY HARRISON,
HEATHER HYDEN, HALEY SAMS, and VITO SCAROLA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEECH-NUT
NUTRITION COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00213-TJM-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for
its negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging, or
advertising of, or statements concerning the Defendant's baby food
products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, markets,
advertises, labels, distributes, and sells baby food products
throughout the United States and describes itself as "dedicated to
championing real food for a healthier world." However, the
Defendant's baby food products' packaging labels do not list, let
alone warn, potential customers that the baby food products contain
toxic heavy metals, the suit says.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation produces food for infants and
toddlers. The Company offers fruit cups, jarred meats and
vegetables, yogurt, cookies, graham crackers, oatmeal, puree fruit
pouches, apple juice, white grape juice, and bottled spring water.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               -and-

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Zachary Rynar, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com
                  zrynar@sgtlaw.com


BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Fallout 4 Video Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Takahashi, writing for VentureBeat, reports that Bethesda
Softworks and its parent firm, ZeniMax Media, are about to face
some uncomfortable questions in a class-action lawsuit about how
they treated the loyal fans of the 2015 hit game Fallout 4. And
that's an annoying problem, as Microsoft is getting ready to buy
Bethesda Softworks in a $7.5 billion acquisition.

While ZeniMax's founder was a lawyer -- the recently deceased
Robert Altman -- and was known for being litigious (ask former
Oculus chief technology officer John Carmack), attorneys in the
class-action say that they are shocked at some of the legal
mistakes that Bethesda has made in the case involving the
downloadable content (DLC) for Fallout 4. It isn't yet clear how
much financial exposure the company has, but the attorneys suing it
say it's a lot of money. It's not unreasonable to think it could be
a billion-dollar-plus liability, the lawyers claim.

Spokespeople for Bethesda and Microsoft declined to comment for
this story.

Fallout 4's smashing success
Fallout 4 was a huge hit when it shipped in 2015, selling an
estimated 13.5 million copies, or an estimated $810 million at the
retail price. On September 9, 2015, two months before the game
shipped, the Bethesda team announced it was selling a Season Pass
for $30 that would entitle gamers to a lifetime of DLC.

"We've always done a lot of DLC for our games. We love making them,
and you always ask us for more," Bethesda said in a post, according
to the lawsuit. "To reward our most loyal fans, this time we'll be
offering a Season Pass that will get you all of the Fallout 4 DLC
we ever do for just $30. Since we're still hard at work on the
game, we don't know what the actual DLC will be yet, but it will
start coming early next year. Based on what we did for Oblivion,
Fallout 3, and Skyrim, we know that it will be worth at least $40,
and if we do more, you'll get it all with the Season Pass."

One special price

Over time, the Season Pass description consistently stated gamers
would "get the Fallout 4 Season Pass and get all Fallout 4 DLC for
one S.P.E.C.I.A.L. price." It hasn't been revealed how many people
bought the DLC based on that promise, but the lawyers believe it
was in the millions of players. Bethesda increased the price of the
Season Pass to $50 in March 2016.

But on June 11, 2017, Bethesda announced something called Creation
Club. The company characterized Creation Club as "a collection of
all-new content for both Fallout 4 and [The Elder Scrolls V:]
Skyrim. It features new items, abilities, and gameplay created by
Bethesda Games Studios and outside development partners including
the best community creators. Creation Club content is fully curated
and compatible with the main game and official add-ons."

While it sounded like "mods," or community-created modifications
for the game, it was really DLC, mostly created by Bethesda itself,
said Filippo Marchino and Thomas Gray, attorneys at the
class-action law firm The X-Law Group. Players like Jacob Devine of
California thought they were entitled to that DLC, based on the
promises that Bethesda made in the past. He bought a Season Pass in
April 2019 at a GameStop store.

"I bought the first season pass, and I was like, cool. That'll give
me all access for the rest of the game, right," Devine said in an
interview with GamesBeat. "Then they dropped that new batch. I'll
go check it out, just to find out I had no access at all. And I had
to buy another season pass basically to have access to it. I was
just disappointed. I felt like I was ripped off."

Devine was familiar with season passes in other games like Call of
Duty and knew that they often had time limits. But he didn't see
any wording to that effect on this one and really thought he was
buying a pass for all future content.

But Bethesda said those purchasers weren't entitled to the Creation
Club content.

"Simply put, Bethesda sold a Season Pass with the understanding
that it was going to give the holders of the Season Pass any and
all DLC content there was going to be created for the game Fallout
4 on a go-forward basis," Marchino said in an interview with
GamesBeat. "They released a limited amount of DLC. Then they
released a second wave of DLC, but decided to call it the Creation
Club content and artificially removed it from the definition of
DLC. Meaning that they promised people at the onset, we will give
you everything we made. And then they reneged on that promise, and
they did so to their benefit or the detriment of the plaintiffs. So
that's where they did something wrong. They lied. They took money
from gamers, and then they made more money."

A class-action lawsuit

On behalf of the 19-year-old Devine, The X-Law Group filed a
lawsuit against Bethesda for false advertising on July 9, 2019.

"It's just about right or wrong," Devine said.

Jacob Devine's father, Trevor Devine, is a former Marine. He
encouraged his son to seek redress and was also disappointed when
the company didn't step up.

"I feel like there's some social responsibility by these companies
to not take advantage of kids," said Trevor Devine in an interview.
"We're forking out money, assuming that large companies are being
ethically correct. I think the moral compass here, in my
estimation, has been a bit skewed. I was honestly very surprised at
the immediate response that they're pushing back and resisting any
sort of compensation or refund. They're taking no ownership or
responsibility. That's difficult to see for kids who bought this
and were suckered in. And it just really felt like they were taken
advantage of. I think there is an enormous class of people here who
would otherwise just be forgotten, in our same situation. There's
different levels of society where if you're a little less
fortunate, economically you're not in a similar position, and
you've worked your butt off, and you've paid for that because
you've worked so long. My heart goes out to those people."

The plot got thicker as ZeniMax announced in September that
Microsoft was buying Bethesda for $7.5 billion. That deal is still
pending, but it could create a behemoth in the game industry,
enabling Microsoft to make far more games for the PC and consoles
than rival such as Nintendo and Sony can do. But this lawsuit might
have to go away first.

The lawsuit charges Bethesda with breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, promissory estoppel (breaking a promise, even in the
absence of a legal contract), deceit or fraud, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, tort arising out of
breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and violation of
Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.

Margaret Esquenet, a counsel for Bethesda, filed an answer to the
lawsuit, denying most of the legal claims. We've asked for
additional comment. On its face, Bethesda's defense is that the new
content wasn't DLC. The company itself was one of the pioneers of
selling DLC, which goes back to the mid-2000s. It includes content
that is developed as an addition to a game, released either with
the game or after it comes out.

The DLC business model enables publishers to further monetize a
game after they release it by selling smaller collections of
content to those who own the original game. DLC may be developed by
the same studios that are responsible for creating the game itself
or by outside entities that enter into contracts to create DLC for
the game. Bethesda has had a DLC controversy in the past with The
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion's horse armor.

As DLC proliferated in the video game industry, publishers began to
offer "season passes." Season passes are a bundle of DLC offered to
consumers, typically at a discount over purchasing DLC à la carte.
Season passes specify the content that will be included with the
purchase of the season pass, either by listing the specific DLC
that will be included, or by stating that the season pass
encompasses all DLC that will be released for the game. Season
passes are frequently available for purchase before the game itself
is released, well before the DLC included in the season pass is
released, and often before the DLC itself has been created.

Bethesda created typical DLC for Fallout 4, such as new weapons,
armor, apparel, locations, characters, creatures, and quests.

Gamers, meanwhile, have created modifications, or "mods," for games
for decades. These predate DLC, but they serve some of the same
functions of keeping players engaged. Most mods are offered for
free, or sold by players, while DLC is sold by the publisher for a
profit.

"It clearly is downloadable content," Marchino said. "It walks like
a duck, quacks like a duck. So it is DLC. They try to slap a
sticker on it and call it Creation Club content to remove it from
the purview of the people that had already bought the Season Pass.
But that's artificial in nature. And it's part of the fraud."

Here's where Bethesda made some amateur legal mistakes, the
opposing attorneys say. Surprisingly, Fallout 4 didn't come with an
End User License Agreement, which could have spelled out the
details about what gamers were entitled to, Marchino said.

"It's surprising to me," said David Hoppe. He's the managing
partner at Gamma Law, a game industry-focused law firm. "It's a
surprising situation for a sophisticated company."

Hoppe, who does not represent either party in the case, said the
litigation has been going on for a year and a half. He notes that
neither side has been able to talk much yet about the merits of the
case.

On top of that, it didn't say what was included in the Season Pass,
or what was the cutoff date for the pass when it came to future
content. Players like Devine believed that their pass entitled them
to everything that would ever come out. DLC descriptions did not
include fine print contradicting that.

"On the Steam Store web page to this day, for the Fallout 4
Creation Club, it is listed under the category of downloadable
content," said Gray at The X-Law Group in an interview. "It says
DLC and downloadable content on several parts of the Steam page.
There is no way that Bethesda can say that Creation Club is
downloadable content on Steam."

None of the marketing material ever mentioned that the Season Pass
did not or would not include Creation Club content.

The thin line between DLC and Creation Club

That's why the Creation Club came as a surprise. While it appeared
to be a collection of mods, the $281 worth of content in the club
was mostly created by Bethesda itself. It included new weapons,
armor, outfits, new locations, decorations, foliage, new types of
gameplay like "survival mode," and character items. Marchino's
legal team believes it should have been included in the Season
Pass.

But Bethesda disagreed, and even after the lawsuit's filing, it
declined to give credits to gamers. In a Frequently Asked Questions
section of their website, Bethesda said, "Is Creation Club paid
mods? No. Mods will remain a free and open system where anyone can
create and share what they'd like. Also, we won't allow any
existing mods to be retrofitted into Creation Club, it must all be
original content. Most of the Creation Club content is created
internally, some with external partners who have worked on our
games, and some by external Creators."

Bethesda continued, "All the content is approved, curated, and
taken through the full internal dev cycle; including localization,
polishing, and testing. This also guarantees that all content works
together. We've looked at many ways to do ‘paid mods,' and the
problems outweigh the benefits. We've encountered many of those
issues before. But, there's a constant demand from our fans to add
more official high-quality content to our games, and while we are
able to create a lot of it, we think many in our community have the
talent to work directly with us and create some amazing new things.
In short, Creation Club content is indistinguishable from DLC,
including DLC released for Fallout 4 by Defendants themselves."

Bethesda marketing and public relations chief Pete Hines called the
new content "almost like mini-DLCs" in interviews with publications
such as IGN and GameSpot, said Gray.

"There are pieces of DLC that are skins for weapons and armor,"
Gray said, referring to the images in this story. "And there are
pieces of Creation Club content that are skins for weapons and
armor. There are DLC quests, and there are Creation Club quests.
It's a distinction without a difference."

Listings for the Season Pass still say that purchasers will "get
all Fallout 4 DLC for one S.P.E.C.I.A.L. price." Instead, Bethesda
has created a distinction without a difference so that it can sell
Creation Club content to purchasers of the Season Pass, Marchino
said. No arbitration agreement was in place, as is often the case
in purchases, when Devine bought his Season Pass, Marchino added.
If Devine wasn't happy, he was free to sue Bethesda, Marchino
said.

The lawsuit isn't yet certified as a class action. Both sides are
in the discovery stage. Marchino and Gray have asked for any
details related to the deal -- and Bethesda's legal exposure --
from Microsoft, Bethesda, and one of Bethesda's big investors,
Providence Equity Partners.

As Microsoft tries to close the transaction, Marchino said he is
concerned about what Bethesda is telling Microsoft about the
lawsuit. He said that he is concerned that Bethesda might try to
shift its assets to a new legal entity and shield itself from any
legal liability related to the class-action lawsuit.

The Human Head deal

Marchino said he has reason to be concerned because of the way
Bethesda allegedly behaved in another acquisition. Bethesda was
sued in California by Ragnarok Game, which gave money to Nine
Realms, which did business as Human Head, to develop a video game
called Rune II and another one called Oblivion Song. Bethesda
effectively acquired Human Head, which transferred all of its
assets to another company, Roundhouse, in secret.

Rune II in particular was a rival to Bethesda's Elder Scrolls
franchise, the lawsuit said. Ragnarok learned about the transfer of
assets when its representatives visited Human Head, only to find
the Roundhouse Studios name on the door. Human Head, with whom
Ragnarok had its agreements, was left as an empty shell. Human
Head's employees were dismissed and rehired by ZeniMax. And Human
Head never finished the games. Ragnarok sued Bethesda for $4.5
million in losses, and the case is pending. Bethesda has denied the
charges.

Ragnarok managed to ship Rune II on the Epic Games Store in
November 2019. The day after it shipped, Human Head announced it
had been acquired by Bethesda.

"Behind the scenes, the conglomerate had conspired with the
developer for months to gain control of the games and undermine
their release," the lawsuit against Bethesda alleges.

Possible outcomes

But Marchino is concerned that Bethesda will use the same tactics
related to the class-action lawsuit, transferring its assets to
another company or Microsoft, and then leaving another empty shell.
That's why Marchino has filed papers to seek more information, and
if necessary, to block Microsoft's $7.5 billion purchase of
Bethesda.

"We have a very big concern. Because this class action we're
engaged in is a proverbial bet the company litigation, meaning that
the value of a judgment could end up being greater than the
assets," Marchino said. "It's curious to us that, all of a sudden,
there is this rush to sell. It liquidates the company, and it
prevents the millions of people that are members of the class from
recovering money."

During the case, the plaintiffs asked if Bethesda was amid an
acquisition. Two months before the big deal was announced, they
received an answer from Esquenet, the outside attorney for
Bethesda.

She replied in a letter on July 10, 2019, saying, "With respect to
the alleged sale of Bethesda, your letter is nothing but rank
speculation and suspicion (apparently tracing back to some
third-party report referencing unconfirmed ‘high-level, informal
talks'), and the relief you seek is not grounded in reality and
lacks merit. You have failed to provide any credible evidence of
any impending sale or asset transfer, much less that anyone at
Bethesda is allegedly plotting to commit fraud and/or dissipate
assets to avoid some hypothetical, non-existent future judgment
(which of course is not the case). Moreover, the discovery you are
seeking is intrusive, irrelevant to any claims in the case, and is
an attempt to harass Bethesda and its management."

Marchino said it was odd that less than two months later, the
acquisition agreement was announced.

Marchino added, "What we're going to try and do is go in and ask a
judge to stop the sale between Microsoft and Bethesda to preserve
the assets. And it's known as a motion for preliminary
injunction."

Since ZeniMax's longtime CEO Altman passed away, it's not clear
what would happen. Marchino said he isn't sure if that will cause
Bethesda to change its legal stance.

"I think corporations don't have a sense of guilt, because they're
not humans. But it is fundamentally wrong to lie to people, just so
you can make an extra dollar," Marchino said. "That's what this
case is about."

Marchino said he can't comment on whether any attempt has been made
to settle the case, as such matters are considered confidential.
The plaintiffs are asking to recover economic losses and damages
suffered (such as the $281 in content the lawyers say the DLC
purchasers are entitled to). The lawyers are also asking for
punitive damages, legal fees, pre and post-judgment interest, and
other relief. Bethesda said in a filing that the plaintiffs have
not been damaged at all.

A trial might happen by 2022, but the risks are clear, given the
pending acquisition. If the actual damages alone are considered,
and the number of players owed the money is somewhere around four
million (not unreasonable given the total population of more than
13.5 million), then the actual damages could be $1.1 billion. If
punitive damages are awarded, the amount could be multiple times
that amount.

"I just can't imagine a judge ordering, or even a jury, really,
approving the award of billions dollars with respect to virtual
downloadable content," Hoppe said.

Hoppe said he doesn't think that either side wants this to go to
trial, and he believes a settlement is likely.

"It's really hard to believe that the exposure would be that big,"
Hoppe said. "It seems like the easiest thing to do would be to open
up the Creation Club to everyone who bought the season pass."

With the passing of time, the risks escalate on both sides, as
costs will mount and the options for settlement become narrower.

"It's a multibillion-dollar lawsuit, depending on the factor of the
punitive damages," Marchino said. "Even a conservative multiplier
of four or five times the damages would yield multibillions of
dollars in damages. We can't reveal the exact number of people that
bought the season pass, but you know that it is a substantial
portion of the people that bought the game."

Would Microsoft still go through with the acquisition if Bethesda
lost the case and got stuck with a $10.1 billion judgment? It might
be a smarter move for all parties concerned to settle the case and
make it go away.

Given Bethesda's reputation, this case is full of irony. [GN]


BIOGEN INC: Shash Named Lead Plaintiff in Shapiro Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD SHAPIRO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL
VOUNATSOS, JEFFREY D. CAPELLO, MICHAEL R. McDONNELL, ALFRED W.
SANROCK JR., and SAMANHA BUDD HAEMERLEIN, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 21-cv-10017-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part
and denied in part Investor Nadia Shash's Unopposed Motion to
Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff.

The Class Action Complaint in the case was filed by Shapiro.  The
Complaint alleges Defendant Biogen and several of its employees
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false or
misleading statements in relation to the development of a new
Alzheimer's drug, aducanumab.

The Complaint seeks to represent all persons other than the
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
Biogen stock between Oct. 22, 2019, and Nov. 6, 2020.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, Shapiro moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff and for the Court to approve his selection of lead
counsel.  Nadia Shash and Biogen Investor Group (a group composed
of three individuals who individually held Biogen stock during the
Class Period) filed similar motions.

Biogen Investor Group subsequently filed a Notice stating that,
upon review of the competing motions, it did not hold the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class.  Accordingly,
Biogen Investor Group stated that it did not oppose Shash and
Shapiro's competing motions.

Shapiro initially opposed Shash's motion, but subsequently withdrew
his motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court
treats Shash's motion as unopposed.

Finally, Shapiro filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stating that
the action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice solely as to
his claims.

Judge Talwani holds that Shash is entitled to a presumption that
she is the most adequate plaintiff.  First, Shash's motion was
timely.  Second, it is undisputed that Shash has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought.  Third, Shash has put
forth a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy in relation
to the claims of the proposed class.  Having concluded that Shash
is entitled to a presumption that she is the "most adequate
plaintiff" and in the absence of any remaining challenges to her
appointment, the Judge finds that Shash should be appointed lead
plaintiff.

What remains is the question of lead counsel.  Shash has selected
the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel and has submitted a
document containing biographies of the Rosen Law Firm's attorneys
and a list of cases that attorneys from the Rosen Law Firm have
worked on demonstrating the law firm's extensive experience
representing clients in similar maters.

However, the Judge finds that Shash's request that the Court
appoints a law firm, rather than individual attorneys, raises the
question of whether a law firm may serve as counsel where it may
not enter appearances, or file pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11.  Furthermore, it is not apparent how the Court can evaluate
the qualifications of the Rosen Law Firm to act as counsel to lead
plaintiff where the Rosen Law Firm has made no commitment as to who
in the firm will be responsible for this litigation.

Accordingly, Shash's motion is denied without prejudice as to the
appointment of lead counsel.  Shash may renew her motion by
identifying the individual attorneys Shash seeks to have appointed.
In the alternative, Shash may move again for the appointment of
the Rosen Law Firm, but must provide authority for the proposition
that the PSLRA, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or applicable
ethical rules contemplate and provide for the appointment of law
firms, as opposed to individual attorneys, as lead counsel.  The
Judge does not anticipate finding persuasive court orders that
appoint law firms as counsel without specifically addressing the
issue.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Talwani granted in part and
denied without prejudice in part Shash's Unopposed Motion to
Appoint Counsel and Appoint Lead Plaintiff.  She appointed Shash as
the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the PSLRA but she denied without
prejudice Shash's request to appoint the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as
the Lead Counsel.

In light of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Shapiro, the
Judge ordered Shash to file an amended complaint in the action no
later than March 23, 2021.  The Clerk is instructed to terminate
Shapiro's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Lead Counsel and the Biogen Investor Group's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel as withdrawn.
Shash's Motion for Leave to File a Reply and Request for Judicial
Notice are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pmpfne7u from Leagle.com.


BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: $9.6MM Judgment in Youmans Upheld in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMILA YOUMANS, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF
BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Case No. 348614
(Mich. App.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed in part,
reversed in part the trial court's amended judgment, entered after
a bench trial, that awarded the Plaintiffs permanent injunctive
relief and $9.58 million in restitution.

In the certified class action, Plaintiff Youmans, who is the sole
class representative, challenged certain municipal utility rates
and ratemaking practices of the Defendant, Charter Township of
Bloomfield.  The case arises out of the Plaintiff's challenge to
various aspects of the Township's water and sewer rates and its
related ratemaking methodology during the "class period," which
commenced on April 21, 2010, for purposes of her assumpsit claims
(i.e., six years before the Plaintiff initiated the action) and on
April 21, 2015, for purposes of Plaintiff's Headlee claims (i.e.,
one year before she initiated the action).

In October 2016, the trial court entered an order "certifying the
case as a class action" and appointing the Plaintiff as the sole
class representative.  The Plaintiff's amended complaint included
six counts, the first of which asserted several claims for
violation of Section 31 of the Headlee Amendment, and the remainder
of which asserted claims for "Assumpsit/Money Had and Received"
with regard to both certain specific components of the Township's
water and sewer rates and the "arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable" nature of those rates and the underlying ratemaking
processes.  After the trial court denied the parties' competing
motions for summary disposition, the matter proceeded to a 10-day
bench trial.

Following the parties' closing arguments, the trial court took the
matter under advisement and, on July 12, 2018, it announced its
opinion orally from the bench.  The court ruled in favor of the
Township with regard to all of the Plaintiff's claims pursued under
Section 31 of the Headlee Amendment, entering a judgment of no
cause of action with respect to those claims.  Generally, the court
reasoned that, under the test set forth in Bolt v City of Lansing,
459 Mich. 152; 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998), the Plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that the disputed charges in the case constituted
unlawful tax exactions.

Approximately two months after the trial court announced its
decision, it held a hearing concerning the proper remedies in the
case.  About three months after the initial judgment was entered,
the Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment under MCR
2.612(C)(1)(f), requesting entry of an amended judgment on the
basis that there were, in fact, several legal or equitable doctrine
that would yield a judicial adjudication in the Plaintiff's favor
because the Township had obscured proofs.

Thus, the trial court granted the Plaintiff most of her requested
relief, entering an amended judgment awarding her and the Plaintiff
class, in sum, approximately $9.58 million (including prejudgment
interest) in "refunds," along with the permanent injunctive relief
described earlier.

The Defendant appeals as of right the trial court's amended
judgment, entered after a bench trial, that awarded the Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff class permanent injunctive relief and more than
$9 million in restitution.  The Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal,
challenging the trial court's refusal to award damages for certain
components of the Township's water and sewer rates.

The parties disagree whether the trial court's use of its equitable
powers was proper.  As the Appellant, the Township argues that,
having found that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the
disputed rates were disproportionate to the underlying costs, the
trial court erred by disregarding the presumption that those rates
were reasonable.  Contrastingly, by way of the Plaintiff's
cross-appeal, she contends that the trial court should have awarded
additional refunds related to the disputed OPEB, PFP, and rent
charges.

The Court of Appeals agrees with the Township that the trial court
erred by failing to apply the presumption that the disputed rates
were reasonable and abused its discretion by granting the Plaintiff
permanent injunctive relief despite her failure to demonstrate that
doing so was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.  It finds no
basis to disturb the trial court's finding that the Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate that the disputed rates were actually
disproportionate to the underlying utility costs.  Consequently,
the Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that the injunctive relief
ordered by the trial court was necessary to avert irreparable
harm.

On this record, one cannot tell whether the Plaintiff or the
Plaintiff class suffered any harm at all as a result of the
disputed rates or ratemaking practices, let alone an irreparable
injury or the real and imminent danger of suffering such an injury.
By nevertheless granting a permanent injunction against the
Township with regard to its ratemaking methodology, the trial court
abused its discretion, overstepping the proper bounds of both its
injunctive powers and the limited scope of judicial review that is
appropriate in ratemaking cases such as this one.

As Cross-Appellant, the Plaintiff contends that the trial court
erred by failing to recognize that the disputed PFP charges are
unlawful under the Revenue Bond Act of 1933 ("RBA"), MCL 141.101 et
seq.  In particular, she argues that those charges are unlawful
because they permit the Township to receive "free service" in
contravention of MCL 141.118(1).

The Court of Appeals holds that in the Plaintiff's brief as
cross-appellant, she fails to explicitly argue that the trial
court's finding in that regard was clearly erroneous, and it
discerns no basis for disturbing it.  There was extensive evidence
at trial concerning the in-kind services the Township renders to
its water and sewer fund, with Heffernan estimating their annual
value at somewhere around $700,000 or $800,000.  On the other hand,
there was a relative dearth of evidence concerning the proper value
for the trial court to ascribe to the PFP services.  Plaintiff's
own expert, Heid, admitted that the "preferable" method of
assessing the value of such services was to perform "a fully
allocated cost of service study" and that he had failed to do so,
having instead used the "antiquated" Maine Curve methodology.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals is not persuaded that the trial
court clearly erred when it found that the Township's provision of
in-kind services constituted sufficient payment for the disputed
PFP services.  And in light of the finding that the Township was
paying for those PFP services, it cannot conclude that the trial
court erred by failing to hold that the Township was receiving
"free" PFP services in contravention of MCL 141.118(1).

The Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by failing to
recognize that the PFP charges are unlawful under MCL 123.141(3).
But she fails to explain how even a proven violation MCL
123.141(3), standing alone, exempts her instant claim from the
presumption-of-reasonableness standard set forth in Trahey, 311
Mich App at 594, 597-598, which regarded a rate challenge pursued
under the same statute: MCL 123.141(3).  The Court of Appeals
concludes that the Plaintiff's assumpsit claims under MCL
123.141(3) are not viable in light of the presumption of
reasonableness.  Hence, it rejects the Plaintiff's instant claim of
error.

Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred or clearly
erred by holding that the disputed OPEB, county drain, and PFP
charges were not unlawful exactions under Sectio 31 of the Headlee
Amendment.  On balance, the Plaintiff has failed to carry her
burden of demonstrating that the disputed rates are impermissible
taxes, rather than user fees, for purposes of Headlee Section 31.
The first and second Bolt factors clearly favor the conclusion that
the disputed charges are proper user fees, and with regard to the
third factor, "the lack of volition does not render a charge a tax,
particularly where the other criteria indicate the challenged
charge is a user fee and not a tax."  Therefore, the trial court
did not err by entering a no-cause judgment against the Plaintiff
with regard to her Headlee claims.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for entry of a
judgment of no cause of action in the Township's favor.  It does
not retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/55dbbe8n from Leagle.com.


BLUEBIRD BIO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline for investors 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 bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLUE) from May 11, 2020 through November 4, 2020(the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a
treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead,
citing "feedback" from the FDA requiring the Company to provide
additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for
LentiGlobin for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and
contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts," bluebird
adjusted its submission timing to late 2022.

On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 13, 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 bluebird securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bluebirdbioinc-blue-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-361/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]

BOFI HOLDING: Court Narrows Claims in Mandalevy Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BAR MANDALEVY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BOFI HOLDING, INC., GREGORY
GARRABTRANTS, ANDREW J. MICHELETTI, ESHEL BAR-ADON and PAUL J.
GRINBERG, Defendants, Case No. 17cv667-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint.

BofI Holding operates as the holding company for BofI federal bank.
It provides consumer and business banking products in the United
States. Id. BofI's common stock trades on the NASDAQ.

The Plaintiffs in the case purchased shares of BofI and claim that
the revelation of a number of the Defendants' misrepresentations
caused the share price to drop.  Defendant Garrabrants has served
at all relevant times as BofI's CEO, President, and Director.
Defendant Micheletti served as BofI's Executive VP and CFO.
Defendant Bar-Adon served as the Chief Legal Officer and Executive
VP.  Defendant Grinberg served as a member of the Board of
Directors and as Chairman of the Board since Feb. 16, 2017.

The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants made a number of false
or misleading statements on two subjects: the company's loans to
criminals and governmental investigations into BofI.  However, the
only statement found to be actionable relates to governmental
investigations into BofI.

On May 28, 2015, the SEC opened a Matter Under Inquiry ("MUI") into
BofI.  However, on Feb. 11, 2016, the SEC closed the MUI and
launched a formal investigation.  In accordance with its
investigation, on Feb. 22, 2016, SEC subpoenaed BofI regarding: 1)
related party transactions; 2) activities of the board, audit
committee and a management regarding conflicts of interest; and 3)
loans given to two specific entities.

On Oct. 19, 2016, the SEC expanded its investigation and issued a
second subpoena that sought numerous documents related to
single-family residential loans extended to non-resident aliens.
According to a confidential witness identified as CW1, Garrabrants
and Micheletti were aware of the formal SEC probe prior to March
2016.  Moreover, CW1 discussed various federal investigations with
Garrabrants in August 2015.

On March 31, 2017, the New York Post published an article entitled,
"Feds probe Bank of Internet for possible money laundering."  The
article stated that federal agents are investigating BofI for
possible money laundering.  The article disclosed that the Justice
Department, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, SEC, and
Treasury Department are all conducting an investigation.  The New
York Post quoted Defendant Bar-Adon as stating that "there are no
material investigations that would require public disclosure and
BofI remains in good regulatory standing."

That same day, BofI issued a press release in response to the New
York Post article.  It stated that the article "is nothing more
than a rehash of baseless allegations that first surfaced over two
years ago, and have been soundly refuted by BofI in court filings
and on conference calls."

On Oct. 25, 2017, the New York Post published another BofI article
entitled, "Bank of Internet Was under 16-month SEC investigation."
The article disclosed that BofI was subject of a 16-month formal
SEC investigation until June 2017.  The article reported that the
SEC investigation was focused on alleged conflicts of interests,
auditing practices, and loans made to two entities, according to
subpoenas and government documents obtained by Probes Reporter, a
publisher of investment research.   These documents were "obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act."

On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendants which asserted a claim under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), by way of
violation of the SEC's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
They also alleged a count for violation of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).  The Plaintiffs
claimed that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) by
making misrepresentations about BofI's loans to criminals and
government investigations.

The Defendants countered with a Motion to Dismiss.  They contended
that the Plaintiffs failed to plead particularized facts showing
that Defendants made misstatements and that they failed to plead
loss causation.

On June 19, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  It found that the Plaintiffs had failed to plead several
of the alleged statements were false or misleading.  However, the
Court found that the Plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated that it
was false for BofI to issue a press release on March 31, 2017,
saying that it has received no indication of and has no knowledge
regarding the money laundering investigation.  Nevertheless, the
Court found dismissal was warranted because the Plaintiffs had not
adequately alleged loss causation with respect to this statement.

The Plaintiffs then filed the SAC, hoping to cure the previous
deficiencies.  They again brought claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Defendants moved to
dismiss, arguing the Plaintiffs had failed to cure the deficiencies
of the previous complaint.

The Court once again ruled that the Plaintiffs had adequately
alleged the falsity of the statement in the March 31, 2017 press
release, but failed to plead loss causation because the alleged
corrective disclosure contained only publicly available
information.  Finding the Plaintiffs could not plead facts to
remedy the deficiencies in the SAC, the Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appealed.  On Nov. 3, 2020, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the Court's order
dismissing the SAC.  In relevant part, the court found that (1) the
Court erred in concluding that because the information in the
October 25, 2017 Post article was obtained through a FOIA request,
it could not qualify as a corrective disclosure as a matter of law;
(2) that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged that the information in
the Oct. 25, 2017 Post article had not been publicly disclosed
prior to its publication; and (3) that the Plaintiffs had
adequately alleged that the Oct. 25, 2017 Post article was in fact
"corrective" of the March 31, 2017 press release statement.  The
Ninth Circuit also declined to reach the Defendants' argument
regarding scienter because the Court had not passed on the issue.

Following the remand, the Court permitted the Parties to file
additional briefing relating to the Defendants' argument, presented
in their original motion to dismiss the SAC, that the Plaintiffs
had failed to adequately plead the element of scienter.

The only issue for which the Court sought additional briefing on
the motion to dismiss is whether the Plaintiffs have adequately
pleaded scienter.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have
failed to plead with sufficient particularity facts that would show
knowledge of any money laundering investigation at the time of the
alleged false statement as to both BofI and the Individual
Defendants.  The Plaintiffs argue that the prior rulings of the
Court and the Ninth Circuit compel a finding that the Defendants
acted with scienter, and in any case, the Plaintiffs have alleged
specific facts that raise a strong inference of scienter.

Judge Curiel easily finds that the SAC, viewed holistically, raises
a strong inference that BofI intentionally made the misleading
press release statement or acted with deliberate recklessness as to
its falsity.  First, the Plaintiffs allege that high level members
of BofI's management knew that BofI was the subject of an SEC
investigation at the time of the March 31, 2017 statement.  Second,
common sense supports the Plaintiffs' theory: by concealing and
denying the existence of the money laundering investigation, the
Defendants' false statement would ward off a drop in stock prices
and prevent the investigation from affecting BofI's value.  The
Defendants thus had something to gain from representing that BofI
was not, in fact, under investigation for money laundering.

Even if the Defendants had intended to word the press release
carefully to avoid explicitly denying the existence of the
particular SEC investigation, the Judge finds that that does not
foreclose the possibility that they intentionally phrased it
broadly to attempt to dispel all suspicion raised by the Post
article.  The SAC therefore raises a strong inference that BofI
made the false or misleading press release statement intentionally
or with reckless disregard.

The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
with the requisite particularity facts that would show Individual
Defendants acted with scienter or were involved in making the
misrepresentation in the press release.  The Plaintiffs oppose,
arguing that the SAC alleges actual knowledge on the part of
Individual Defendants and presents circumstances suggesting it
would be "absurd to suggest that management was without knowledge"
of the SEC investigation in March 2017.  They also assert that the
Individual Defendants are liable for the false or misleading
statement in the press release because their positions in the
company gave them authority over BofI's statement.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged specific facts at
the motion to dismiss stage to adequately plead that Garrabrants,
Micheletti, and Bar-Adon had the "ultimate authority" over the
press release.  Although not dispositive, he also takes into
account the reasonable inference that high-level officers who are
alleged to have been intimately involved with the Company's
response to the SEC investigation would play a part in ensuring the
accuracy of BofI's public statements regarding such significant
allegations in the press.  On the other hand, the SAC falls short
in alleging Grinberg's authority over the press release with
sufficient particularity.  He therefore finds that the Plaintiffs
have not alleged sufficient facts to show Grinberg was the `maker'
of the press release statement.

As with their allegations regarding the Individual Defendants'
personal involvement, the Plaintiffs also raise a strong inference
of scienter with respect to Garrabrants, Micheletti, and Bar-Adon.
They allege specific facts to show that Garrabrants, Micheletti,
and Bar-Adon had actual knowledge of the SEC investigation.

Although the other confidential witnesses' testimony in this regard
may fall short of the particularity requirement, CW1 stated that he
or she learned of the formal SEC investigation directly from
Garrabrants and Micheletti in or around March 2016, before the
press release.  Bar-Adon, as the Chief Legal Officer, would have
received the SEC subpoenas and also directly responded to the
allegations in the Post article.

These specific factual allegations, the Judge holds, in addition to
the more general allegations regarding these three Defendants'
involvement in responding to federal investigations of BofI and
their role in company management, raise a strong inference that
they knew of the SEC investigation and that it related in part to
the potential money laundering issues raised by the Post article.
However, there are no other allegations regarding Grinberg's
exposure to information regarding the SEC investigation,
particularly with regard to the expanded scope of the investigation
into matters that potentially touched on money laundering following
the Oct. 19, 2016 subpoena.  It is therefore not inconceivable that
Grinberg would have been ignorant of the fact that the SEC probe
had expanded to include matters related to money laundering as
referenced in the Post article.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claims against Garrabrants, Micheletti, and Bar-Adon,
and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim against Grinberg.  However, because the Defendants did not
previously raise this ground for dismissal and the Plaintiffs could
plead additional facts consistent with the SAC that could state a
claim against Grinberg, the dismissal of this count will be with
leave to amend.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim is derivative of their
Section 10(b) claims.  The Defendants challenge the Section 20(a)
only on the basis that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
primary violation of the securities laws.  Because the Judge finds
the Plaintiffs have stated a primary violation, he denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim.

For these reasons, Judge Curiel vacted the hearing on the matter.
He (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claims against BofI, Garrabrants, Micheletti, and Bar-Adon; (ii)
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim
against Grinberg without prejudice; and (iii) denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim.  If the
Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the
deficiencies with respect to the Section 10(b) claim against
Grinberg, they must do so within 20 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2k2ydvtn from Leagle.com.


BOOZ ALLEN: Not Compelled to Yield Supplemental Docs in Hunter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH J. HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. BOOZ ALLEN
HAMILTON, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-411
(S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
denied the Plaintiffs' request to compel supplemental document
production by the Defendants for the time period of July 1, 2019,
through Dec. 31, 2020.

The putative class action arises out of Plaintiffs Hunter and David
N. Yountz's allegations that Defendants Booz Allen Hamilton
("BAH"), CACI International Incorporated, CACI Technologies LLC,
and CACI Technologies Inc., and Mission Essential Personnel, LLC
("ME") violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, by entering
into and enforcing agreements to refrain from recruiting one
another's employees at a certain jobsite in Molesworth, England.

The Plaintiffs served requests for production of documents on the
Defendants on May 8, 2019.  Of relevance to the present dispute,
Request for Production No. 6 sought compensation and other employee
data for all of the Defendants' employees, and Request for
Production No. 15 sought documents and communications relating to
any agreements between the Defendants regarding recruiting or
hiring practices.  The Plaintiffs instructed the Defendants that
the relevant period for all written discovery requests was "Jan. 1,
2013 through the present." On June 7, 2019, all the Defendants
served written responses to the Plaintiffs' requests, objecting to
their proposed relevant time period as overbroad and stating they
would produce documents for the time period of "Jan. 1, 2017 to
present."

Due to the volume of documents requested and the challenges posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants' document production
continued into 2020.  In May 2020, Defendants BAH and ME sent
letters to the Plaintiffs explaining certain aspects of their
document production.  BAH and ME noted at least 10 times across
three letters that the temporal scope of their document production
ended on June 30, 2019.

Although exact dates of document production are not in the record,
the Defendants' document production apparently continued on a
rolling basis through sometime in 2020.  After the Court granted
the parties' joint request for an extension, the discovery period
expired on Feb. 15, 2021.

On Feb. 19, 2021, four days after the close of discovery, the
Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Defendants asking them to
supplement their document and data production under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(e) by producing all responsive documents and
communications, employee compensation data, employee personnel
files, and updated lists of all workers employed at Molesworth from
July 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2020.  The parties met and conferred
regarding the Plaintiffs' request but were unable to reach
agreement.

The Plaintiffs contacted the Court on Feb. 24, 2021, to request an
informal conference to resolve the dispute.  Magistrate Judge
Vascura held a telephone conference with all parties on Feb. 26,
2021, and ruled during the conference that the Defendants need not
supplement their production.

Magistrate Judge Vascura finds that the Defendants need not
supplement their previous document production with documents
postdating June 30, 2019, for two reasons.  First, the text of the
Plaintiffs' document requests indicates they are limited in time to
a period ending prior to June 30, 2019.  Second, even if the
Plaintiffs' requests as written did encompass a period through Dec.
31, 2020, the Plaintiffs have forfeited any right to court
intervention by their delay in raising the issue.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Vascura denied the Plaintiffs'
request to compel supplemental document production from the
Defendants for the time period of July 1, 2019, through Dec. 31,
2020.  She noted that, if the Defendants discover that their
document production for the time period ending June 30, 2019, is in
any way incorrect or incomplete, they must supplement their
production as required by Rule 26(e), even though the discovery
period has closed.

The Clerk is directed to file the parties' pre- and post-conference
submissions on the docket as a separate ECF entry.  Exhibits to the
parties' submissions that were marked by the parties as
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" under the Stipulated
Protective Order will be filed under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5es8jy8 from Leagle.com.


BOYD GAMING: Two Classes in James FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGER JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION and KANSAS
STAR CASINO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-2260-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.),
Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas:

    (i) grants in part but also denies in part the Plaintiff's
        Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification and Issuance of
        Notice to Similarly Situated Employees; and

   (ii) grants in part but also denies in part the Defendants'
        Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply in Response to
        Plaintiff's Reply and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
        for Conditional FLSA Certification.

Plaintiff James works for Kansas Star located not far from Wichita.
His lawsuit alleges that Kansas Star and its owner, Boyd Gaming,
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections
201-219 ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff is suing Kansas Star and Boyd Gaming individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated.  He alleges that Boyd
Gaming and Kansas Star violated the FLSA in two respects.  First,
he claims, they paid tipped employees below minimum wage without
complying with the FLSA's tip credit notice provisions.  Second, he
asserts, the Defendants maintain a mandatory tip pool that doesn't
comply with the FLSA's rules for these arrangements.

Boyd Gaming owns a number of casinos and similar gaming
entertainment establishments across America, including -- as
relevant in the case -- in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.  These casinos are
operated through separate, subsidiary legal entities, like Kansas
Star Casino, LLC.  Although this arrangement means that each casino
runs its own show in many respects, Boyd Gaming is an employer of
everyone who works at the 13 individual establishments implicated
in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is a table games dealer at Kansas Star.  It's what
the FLSA calls a non-exempt position, and it pays a base hourly
wage that is less than the applicable federal minimum wage.  In
addition to his subminimum base hourly wage (i.e., a base hourly
wage below the federal minimum wage), the Plaintiff receives tips
through Boyd Gaming's tip pooling arrangement among his casino's
table games dealers.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent two collectives of current or
former employees of the Defendants, who, in the three-year and
60-day period before the Order, either were: (1) tipped employees
who were paid a subminimum base hourly wage, or (2) table games
dealers who participated in a tip pooling arrangement.

On Aug. 20, 2019, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that
bifurcated discovery into two phases.  Phase I discovery was
focused on conditional certification issues.  The Order set a
deadline of April 30, 2020 for limited Phase I discovery before the
deadline to file the motion for conditional certification.  Later,
the court extended this deadline to June 29, 2020.

The Court deferred setting deadlines for Phase II discovery on
merits-related issues until it rules on conditional certification.
Over the course of Phase I discovery, the parties served Rule 26(a)
disclosures, conducted written discovery, and took depositions of
several individuals, including the named Plaintiff, Boyd Gaming's
Vice President of Human Resources, Kansas Star's Director of Human
Resources, and a corporate representative of Boyd Gaming.

The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification
on July 20, 2020.  He seeks conditional certification of the
following:

      a. Tip Credit Notice Collective: All persons employed at a
relevant Boyd Gaming casino during the relevant time perio and paid
a base hourly wage of less than the applicable federal minimum wage
of $7.25 per hour.

      b. Tip Pool Collective: All persons employed as a table games
dealer and included within a tip pooling arrangement at a relevant
Boyd Gaming casino during the relevant time period.

The Plaintiff's motion seeks conditional certification of his FLSA
claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  He
also asks the Court to set parameters governing when and how to
provide notice to the putative class members, if the Court grants
his motion for conditional certification.

The Defendants have filed a Response opposing certification and
some of the Plaintiff's requests involving notice.  And the
Plaintiff has filed a Reply.  The Defendants also filed a Motion
for Leave to File a Sur-reply in Response to Plaintiff's Reply and
in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional FLSA
Certification.  The Plaintiff opposes defendants' motion, and the
Defendants replied.

Judge Crabtree grants in part but also denies in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional FLSA Certification.  And, he
grants in part but also denies in part the Defendants' Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-reply.

Specifically, the Judge (1) grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification of the Tip Credit Notice Collective
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA; (2) grants the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional class certification of the Tip Pool Collective
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA; (3) denies without prejudice the
Plaintiff's request to toll the statute of limitations because this
request is premature; (4) grants the Defendants' motion for leave
to file a sur-reply, but only with respect to their arguments about
evidence admissibility, and denies the remainder of the motion; (5)
orders the parties to submit the following to the court: (i) their
Joint Proposed Notice, within 14 days of the Order's entry, or;
(ii) if the parties cannot agree on all aspects of a proposed
Notice, they must submit a Joint Motion identifying the portions of
the Notice on which they can and cannot agree and setting forth
their respective positions on areas of disagreement, within 30 days
of receipt of the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice, and (iii) a
Stipulation and Order of Confidentiality regarding potential opt-in
Plaintiffs' contact information; (6) orders the Defendants to
provide the Plaintiff with an electronic and importable list
containing all the putative class members' full names, employee
IDs, positions, dates of employment, and all available contact
information (including last known physical address, telephone
number, and email address) within 30 days of the Order.

Finally, the Judge appoints the Plaintiff as class representative
for the collective action and appoints the Plaintiff's counsel as
the class counsel.

Accordingly, he directs the Defendants to file the approved
portions of their proposed sur-reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/jvy7y4bd from Leagle.com.


BROGDON PROPERTIES: Faces Mantikas Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA MANTIKAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROGDON PROPERTIES INCORPORATED
dba THE MAIN ATTRACTION GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; EUGENE EDICK; JAIME
IGLESIAS; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00378-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code including failure
to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful taking
of tips, illegal kickbacks, forced tip sharing, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties.

The Plaintiff worked as a dancer at the Main Attraction Gentlemen's
Club located at 939 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, California from
2018.

Brogdon Properties Incorporated, doing business as The Main
Attraction Gentlemen's Club, is a club owner and operator located
at 939 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LLP
         12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                 jesenia@kristensenlaw.com

CARGURUS INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarGurus, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. CarGurus, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01176 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

CarGurus -- https://www.cargurus.com/ -- is a Cambridge,
Massachusetts-based automotive research and shopping website that
assists users in comparing local listings for used and new cars,
and contacting sellers.[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


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Simoni Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stephen J. Simoni, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
Verizon Wireless, Case No. SOM-L-000131-21 was removed from the
Somerset County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on March 5, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04311 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless --
https://www.verizonwireless.com/ -- is an American
telecommunications company which offers wireless products and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
          PO BOX 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: (973) 360-7900
          Email: sellingerp@gtlaw.com


CENTENE CORP: Oliver Seeks Proper Wages for CSRs Under FLSA, IMWL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENASHA OLIVER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CENTENE CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
4:21-cv-00199 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 17, 2021) is a collective and class
action arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to its Website, the Defendant "is the largest Medicaid
managed care organization in the U.S.," providing "access to
high-quality healthcare, innovative programs and a wide range of
health solutions that help families and individuals get well, stay
well and be well." Defendant boasts itself as being "a diversified,
multi-national FORTUNE 50 company."

The Defendant has a family of subsidiary companies across the
United States to assist members across the country in accessing
high-quality, culturally sensitive healthcare services. In
furtherance of this objective, Defendant employs thousands of
hourly, nonexempt call center employees, referred to as Customer
Service Representatives (CSRs). These employees provide services
primarily over the phone via in-bound or out-bound calls to the
Defendant's members and health care providers.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant knew or could have easily
determined how long it takes CSRs to complete their off-the-clock
work, and the Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiff
and the putative Collective and Class for this work, but did not.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights
of the putative Collective and Class were violated, an award of
unpaid wages, an award of liquidated damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attendant penalties and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs to make her, the Collective and Class whole for
damages they suffered, and to ensure that they and future workers
will not be subjected by Defendant to such illegal conduct in the
future.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Burger, Esq.
          BURGER LAW
          500 N. Broadway, Suite 1860
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 542-2222
          E-mail: gary@burgerlaw.com

               - and -

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

CHAPPAQUA SERENITY: Villalobos Sues Over Salon Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTEA DURAN VILLALOBOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAPPAQUA SERENITY SPA INC. (D/B/A
SERENITY SPA), SERENITY SPA & NAIL INC. (D/B/A SERENITY SPA), and
CHOI HAE JEONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01883 (S.D.N.Y., March
3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay minimum wages at appropriate rate, failure
to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and unlawful deductions from tips.

Plaintiff Duran was employed as a nail technician and masseuse at
Serenity Spa located at 20 King St., Chappaqua, New York from
approximately July 2013 until on or about February 14, 2019.

Chappaqua Serenity Spa Inc., doing business as Serenity Spa, is an
owner and operator of a nail salon located at 20 King St.,
Chappaqua, New York.

Serenity Spa & Nail Inc., doing business as Serenity Spa, is an
owner and operator of a nail salon located at 20 King St.,
Chappaqua, 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

CHICAGO, IL: Husch Blackwell Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
James O'Shea, II, Esq. -- james.oshea@huschblackwell.com -- of
Husch Blackwell LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the
Illinois Supreme Court recently held that an increased risk of
future harm is not an injury; tossing a class action suit which
sought damages related to the City of Chicago's replacement of
water meters and water main pipes. The named Plaintiffs had filed
the case on behalf of all Chicago residents who had water mains or
meters replaced or installed between January 2008 and January 2017.
The suit alleged negligence and inverse condemnation against the
City of Chicago.

Background
In Berry et al., v. The City of Chicago, Plaintiffs filed suit in
the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging increased lead in their
drinking water due to construction performed by the City of
Chicago. Until 2008, 80 percent of the residential water lines in
Chicago were made of lead. Although the City of Chicago treated
these lines to prevent corrosion, the protective coating can become
compromised from construction or a sudden rush of water after a
line is turned back on after a period of inactivity, leading to
lead in the drinking water.

Plaintiffs' class action complaint centered on allegations that the
City of Chicago was negligent in their replacement of water mains
and meters that supplied water to its residents and inverse
condemnation due to the city making residents' water lines more
dangerous. The City of Chicago responded by moving to dismiss the
complaint for (i) failure to state a claim, and (ii) the city's
immunity under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees
Tort Immunity Act.

Negligence Claim
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the City of Chicago that an
increased risk of future harm is not an injury, and therefore, the
City of Chicago cannot be found negligent without an injury. The
Court also held that the need for medical monitoring due to
increased risk of lead exposure is not an injury because the need
for medical monitoring would be based on the potential increased
risk of harm, which as stated above, is not an injury. The Court
made clear, if there is an injury, then a plaintiff can recover for
an increased risk of future harm; however, an increased risk of
future harm alone is not an injury and having elevated lead levels
in your blood without physical impairment or dysfunction does not
constitute an injury.

Inverse Condemnation Argument
The Illinois Supreme Court stated that if "the injury amounts only
to an inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants of the property
but does not affect the value of the property, it is not within the
provision of the constitution even though a personal action would
lie therefor. The injury complained of must also be actual,
susceptible of proof and capable of being approximately measured,
and must not be speculative, remote, prospective or contingent."
The Court held that Plaintiffs' allegations of "dangerousness" are
not susceptible to objective measurement, thus, it could not by
itself be considered damage under the "takings clause" of the
Illinois constitution. Additionally, the Court noted that the
Plaintiffs did not allege any depreciation to their property value,
which is required.

Applicability to Toxic Tort Litigation
The Court's holding suggests that plaintiffs must have actual or
realized harm, rather than an increased risk of harm, to bring a
suit that will survive a motion to dismiss. It should also be noted
that the City of Chicago announced in August of 2020 that it is
working on a plan to replace lead service lines throughout the
city. [GN]


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Ruling Certified for Interlocutory Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELAINE DOUGAN, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. C20-0818JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L.
Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants Plaintiff Dougan's motion to certify
the Court's Oct. 27, 2020 order for interlocutory appeal under 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

Ms. Dougan's suit is a proposed class action arising from her
allegations that TCP sent emails with subject lines advertising
false or misleading discounts to Ms. Dougan and others in
Washington.  TCP is a specialty retailer that sells apparel,
accessories, footwear, and other items for infants and children
online and in retail stores nationwide, including in Washington.

Ms. Dougan alleges that TCP creates purported list prices for its
products which are inflated far above the products' regular and
true selling prices.  As a result, when TCP offers discounted and
sale prices, the list prices and claimed discounts are false and
inflated because TCP rarely or never offers the products at their
stated list price.

On Nov. 22, 2018, Ms. Dougan voluntarily enrolled in TCP's My Place
Rewards Program ("MPR Program") at a TCP retail store in Kennewick,
Washington.  The MPR Program provides loyalty points, discounts,
and reward credit to TCP shoppers.  TCP sends Program
communications, offers, and reward certificates to Program members
by email.

The MPR Brochure is a 30-page double-sided document that includes
information about both the MPR Program and TCP's MPR Credit Card
Program.  The Program terms and conditions begin on the fourth page
of the MPR Brochure with a message in large boldface type stating
the arbitration provisions.  The specific terms setting forth the
"Applicable Law and Mandatory Agreement to Arbitrate on an
Individual Basis" begin on the fifth page of the terms and
conditions and the eighth page of the brochure.

On Nov. 22, 2018, the TCP sales associate followed the general
process above to enroll Ms. Dougan in the MPR Program.  Ms. Dougan
states, however, that neither the TCP sales associate nor anyone
else at the store handed her a copy of the MPR Brochure, nor did
anyone say anything to her about the brochure or about terms and
conditions that governed her membership.  Although Ms. Dougan
states that she never saw an email from TCP "about any terms and
conditions relating to the MPR Program," TCP's records show that
Ms. Dougan received both the email asking her to confirm her email
address and the welcome email on Nov. 23, 2018.  TCP's records also
show that Ms. Dougan used her membership after she enrolled in the
Program and was assigned reward coupons on Nov. 24, 2018 and Oct.
8, 2019.

TCP filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 10, 2020.  The
Court granted TCP's motion to compel arbitration and stayed all
proceedings until the completion of the arbitration.  It concluded
that the physical signs in the retail store and the emails Ms.
Dougan received placed her on constructive notice that her
membership in the MPR Program was governed by terms and conditions.
Had she inquired further, she would have discovered that those
terms and conditions included an agreement to submit any disputes
about the MPR Program to arbitration.

Ms. Dougan now moves for an order certifying the court's Oct. 27,
2020, order for interlocutory appeal.  She contends that the
following questions make interlocutory appeal appropriate: "First,
can a court find that an email provided constructive notice when
that email has not been admitted into evidence or even proffered?
Second, can constructive notice ever be provided after the conduct
constituting assent occurs?  Third, can fine print on a promotional
sign posted in a store constitute constructive notice as a matter
of law?  Fourth, must notice of terms and conditions contain a call
to action in order to bind a consumer to those terms and
conditions?  Fifth, is a company's affidavit of a consistent
practice of handing customers a brochure prima facie evidence that
the plaintiff had notice of the terms or does a plaintiff's sworn
affidavit that she never received the brochure rebut this evidence?
Sixth, does a brochure's contractual nature need to be obvious on
its cover in order to provide constructive notice of the terms and
conditions contained within it?"

Judge Robart explains that a district court may certify an order
for interlocutory appeal where the order (1) "involves a
controlling question of law"; (2) "as to which there is a
substantial ground for difference of opinion"; and (3) "an
immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation."  All three requirements must be met
to certify an order for interlocutory appeal.

The Judge concludes that Ms. Dougan's non-brochure-related
questions are questions of law that are sufficiently controlling to
satisfy the first prong of analysis.  TCP contends that Ms.
Dougan's presented questions are not sufficiently abstract to be
viewed as "questions of law."  But all of Ms. Dougan's questions
pertain to what the Court may properly conclude to be constructive
notice.  These questions are sufficiently legal in nature to
justify interlocutory appeal.

Ms. Dougan contends that there are substantial grounds for
differences of opinion on whether an email can be found to provide
constructive notice when that email has not been admitted into
evidence or proffered.  The Judge concludes that substantial
grounds for a difference of opinion exists for four of the six
questions that Ms. Dougan wishes to raise on appeal.

The Judge holds that there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion on whether constructive notice can be provided after the
conduct constituting assent occurs.  The same is true for Ms.
Dougan's third and fourth questions.  He recognizes that a
reasonable jurist could determine that the rationale in Wilson
could be extended to apply to in-store signs, and finds that the
text on in-store signs directing Ms. Dougan to TCP's website for
more information regarding terms and conditions contributed to Ms.
Dougan's constructive notice.  Ms. Dougan's fifth and sixth
questions deal with TCP's brochures.  As these issues are not
controlling, he declines to analyze whether there are substantial
grounds for differences of opinion on these questions.

Next, the Judge finds that the Court's Oct. 27, 2020 order involves
controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion, and that immediate appeal may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.  It
is especially true when, as in the case, the order compelling
arbitration is in a proposed class action, and appeal may obviate
many arbitrations, not just Ms. Dougan's.  Thus, the Judge
concludes that interlocutory appeal may materially advance the
litigation in the matter.

Finally, TCP argues that Ms. Dougan's motion is untimely and should
be denied on this basis.  But TCP also acknowledges that "Section
1292(b) does not set forth a strict time period in which a motion
to certify must be filed."  It also recognizes that the Ninth
Circuit has not expressed a view as to what should constitute a
timely initial request for certification.  The Judge concludes that
Ms. Dougan has not been inexcusably dilatory, and declines TCP's
invitation to deny Ms. Dougan's motion on this basis.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart granted Ms. Dougan's motion
to certify for interlocutory appeal.  He ordered that the Court's
Oct. 27, 2020 order compelling arbitration in the matter be
certified for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Ms. Dougan will file her notice of appeal within 10 days
of the filing of the Order.  The certification does not affect the
stay of proceedings ordered by the court in its Oct. 27, 2020
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f27jp7kd from Leagle.com.


CHOWBUS INC: Wang Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Zhengjian Wang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Chowbus, Inc. a.k.a. Fantuan Group, Inc. d.b.a. Chowbus, and
Zhenjun Shen, Case No. 1:21-cv-01956 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, arising from the
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices; and that he is entitled to recover from
the Defendants: unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours
premium, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and cost.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a
patterned practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiff, minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a delivery
person for the Defendants' food delivery service from March 1, 2019
to September 23, 2019, and then again from August 1, 2020 to
February 27, 2021.

Chowbus, Inc. is a foreign business corporation, which operates a
food delivery service, organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware with headquarters located in Chicago,Illinois, 60604, and
with a New York local office located in Elmhurst, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Dong, Esq.
          DONG, ADAM'S LAW FIRM PLLC
          3708 Main St, Suite 308
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Phone: (929) 269-5666
          Email: adam.dong@dongadams.com


CLAREMONT RETIREMENT: Faces Andrade-Salinas Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Claremont Retirement
Management Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Anna M.
Andrade-Salinas v. Claremont Retirement Management Services, Inc.,
Case No. 34-2021-00294807-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Feb. 18, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

Claremont Retirement provides caring and compassionate senior
living.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.coms

CLOVER HEALTH: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the publicly traded
company Clover Health Investments, Corp.  Shareholders who
purchased shares in the company during the date listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.

Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV)

Investors Affected : October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Clover Health Investments, Corp. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=13388&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770

SOURCE: The Gross Law Firm [GN]

CNMI PUBLIC: Fund Can't Enforce Class Action Settlement Against PSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Manabat, writing for Marianas Variety, reports that District
Court for the NMI Designated Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood has
denied the Settlement Fund's request to enforce the final judgment
approving the Betty Johnson class action settlement agreement
against the CNMI Public School System.

The Settlement Fund has requested the federal court to issue an
order declaring that: (1) PSS is not entitled to 25% of the
Settlement Fund Revolving Fund and the amounts for the 25% benefit
payments appropriated under 4 CMC Section 1803 because these
amounts are constitutionally and contractually obligated payments
under Article III, Section 20(a) of the CNMI Constitution and the
Settlement Agreement; and (2) PSS actions in seeking payment from
amounts appropriated to the Settlement Fund violates the Settlement
Agreement.

In its lawsuit against the CNMI government in the Superior Court,
PSS alleged violations of the CNMI Constitution based on eight
statutory appropriations identified as expenditures in the fiscal
year 2020 budget set forth in Public Law 21-8, including the
appropriations for payments under the Settlement Agreement: (1) the
appropriation for the Settlement Fund Revolving Account created
under Section 2 of P.L. 20-33 (codified as 1 CMC Section 25301) to
pay the minimum annual payment or MAP and (2) the appropriation
under 4 CMC Section 1803 to pay the 25% benefit payments.

PSS in its lawsuit stated that P.L 21-8 is unconstitutional, the
appropriations in P.L. 21-8 are invalid, and that it is entitled to
25% of the revenue appropriated for the Settlement Fund payments
immediately and retroactively.

In her order, the judge said the Settlement Fund is arguing that
that the PSS suit before the CNMI Superior Court seeks to
invalidate the public laws establishing the source of funding for
payments to the Settlement Fund, thus impairing or diminishing the
payments required under the Settlement Agreement.

According to the Commonwealth government and PSS, however, the
Superior Court action will not affect the CNMI's obligation to make
annual payments to the Settlement Fund as required by the
Settlement Agreement.

PSS asserts that it has not "tried to disturb, reduce, stop, or
curtail payments" to the Settlement Fund. PSS also argues that
"even if the laws at issue were invalidated, the Commonwealth's
obligation to pay the minimum annual payments each year remains
unaffected."

The judge said she agrees with the Commonwealth and PSS.

She said the issues presented in the PSS lawsuit are matters of
state law and public policy, which do not affect the amounts owed
to the Settlement Fund.

Accordingly, she said, the court finds no basis to grant the relief
requested by the Settlement Fund.

In her order, Tydingco-Gatewood stated: PSS's suit in the Superior
Court does not concern the enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement.

She also noted that the "Commonwealth continues to pay the MAP,"
and no breach of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement, she added, "simply required the
Commonwealth to make the agreed upon minimum payments, which the
Commonwealth has done and continues to do."

Moreover, based on the record before the court, "it appears to the
court that PSS does not seek to terminate the Commonwealth's
payments to the Settlement Fund or to take 25% of any funds
earmarked for the Settlement Fund."

In November 2020, the Board of Education directed PSS to voluntary
dismiss its lawsuit against the CNMI government in Superior Court.

Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho granted the dismissal without
prejudice, which means that PSS can still file the same lawsuit in
the future.

The lawyers of the Settlement Fund, Joyce Tang and Nicole
Torres-Ripple, did not sign the motion for voluntary dismissal.

Background

In 2009, retiree Betty Johnson sued the CNMI government for its
failure to pay the amounts that it was required by law to pay to
the Retirement Fund since 2005.

Johnson said the Fund would run out of money by June 2014 and would
no longer be able to pay retirement benefits.

In September 2013, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit and the
federal court approved a $779 million consent judgment in case the
CNMI government does not meet its obligations to the Settlement
Fund.

The Settlement Fund was created by the federal court as part of the
settlement between the CNMI government and retirees. [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Ice Cream Bars Are Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANKUSH PURI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No.
5:21-cv-01202-SVK (N.D. Calif., Feb. 18, 2021) alleges that the
unqualified, prominent and conspicuous front label representations
of the chunks of chocolate, the chocolate almond coating of the
Kirkland Signature brand (Product) and the statement "Chocolate
Almond Dipped" are false, deceptive and misleading because the
"chocolate" consists mainly of ingredients consumers do not expect
in chocolate -- vegetable oils.

Costco manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice
cream bars purported to be dipped in chocolate and almonds, under
the Kirkland Signature brand (Product). The Product is available to
consumers from defendant's retail stores and is sold in boxes of 18
bars (55.8 OZ).

The relevant representations include "Kirkland Signature," "Ice
Cream Bars," "Chocolate Almond Dipped Vanilla," a picture of the
product and pieces of chocolate, vanilla beans, a vanilla flower
and whole almonds:

Chocolate is made from cacao beans, which are not consumed by
themselves - they are subject to fermentation, drying and roasting,
which produces cacao nibs.

However, the front label representations of solid chunks of
chocolate, a chocolate covered ice cream bar and the words
"Chocolate Almond Dipped," are very misleading and at best, a
"half-truth," because the chocolate part of the Product contains
ingredients not found in real chocolate – "Coconut Oil" and
"Soybean Oil," the suit says.

The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers like the plaintiff.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading labeling, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$10.99 per box of 18 bars, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction to stop Defendant’s
false and misleading marketing practices with regards to the
Product.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Santa Clara,
California. The plaintiff purchased the Product within her district
and/or State for personal consumption and/or use in reliance on the
representations the Product contained chocolate, understood to
specifically exclude vegetable oils and vegetable
fats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: 856-772-7200
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Alex Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 450-9689
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-mail alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Kereselidze Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Maka Kereselidze, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC dba Credit
Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01195-PKC-RER
(E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed full-service receivables and collections
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com

CUSTOMS BY ILENE: Hentschel Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DIEGO HENTSCHEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSTOMS BY ILENE, INC. d/b/a DRIP
CREATIONZ, a California corporation, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00332 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant sent him numerous
telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone number ending
in 1596 beginning in or about December 11, 2020. The Defendant's
text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.
promoting its specialty clothing. Despite the Plaintiff's use of
standard opt-out language, the Defendant ignored it and sent the
Plaintiff another telemarketing text message. At no point in time
did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS), the suit says.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct of sending
unsolicited telemarketing messages, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons were harmed. Thus, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff seeks an
award of actual and statutory damages and treble damages; an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text
messaging and prohibiting the Defendant from using an ATDS without
obtaining the recipient's consent to receive calls made with such
equipment; an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

                - and –

          Joshua Moyer, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          401 W A Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com


DAKS INC: Underpays Delivery Drivers, White Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
JEREAMY WHITE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. DAKS, INC., DANISH W DHEDHI, and MAHMOOD
EBRAHIM, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00303-HNJ (N.D. Ala.,
February 25, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants for their alleged numerous violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver, alleges that the Defendants employs an unlawful delivery
driver reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a
per-delivery basis that equates to rates substantially below the
IRS business mileage reimbursement rate resulting to a much less
than reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.
As a result of the Defendants' flawed reimbursement policy, their
delivery drivers were not paid the federal minimum wage, the
Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs collectively seek actual
damages for unpaid wages and liquidated damages equal in amount to
the unpaid compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest at the
statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Daks, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
Alabama. The Individual Defendants are owners and officers of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Tel: (205) 523-0463
          Fax: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


DHC FOOD: Faces Taylor Suit in Northern District of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHC Food & Beverage
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as Kathleen Taylor v. DHC
Food & Beverage Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00940 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 19, 2021).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

The Defendants include Davidson Hotel Company LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

DYLN INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dyln Inc. The case is
styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Dyln Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01927 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Dyln Inc. -- https://www.dyln.co/ -- offers the DYLN Bottle that
creates antioxidant alkaline water and keeps it cold for up to 24
hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


EBIX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Nov. 9, 2020 - Feb. 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/EBIX
Contact An Attorney Now: EBIX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Ebix, Inc. (EBIX) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed 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
4Q 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, RSM, 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.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Feb. 19, 2021 when
RSM abruptly resigned, stating that that "despite repeated
inquiries" RSM was unable to obtain sufficient audit evidence 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." These "unusual
transactions" concerned the company's gift card business in India.

In addition, RSM and Ebix reportedly disagreed over whether $30
million transferred to a comingled trust account of Ebix's outside
counsel should still be classified as cash on Ebix's balance sheet,
even though those funds were outside Ebix's direct control.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
40%, in a single trading day.

Most recently, on Mar. 1, 2021, after the market closed Ebix
announced it would not timely file its YE 2020 financial statements
because it has been unable to hire another outside auditor.

This news sent the price of Ebix shares crashing lower again.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ebix insiders
cooked the company's books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Ebix shares and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ebix
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new 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 Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email EBIX@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]



EBIX INC: Pawar Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of Ebix, Inc. ( EBIX) from
November 9, 2020 through February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ebix, Inc.
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: 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; there was a material
weakness in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid
revenue transaction cycle; 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 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 wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

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

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

Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]

EBIX INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important April 23, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Ebix securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ebix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2041.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. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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
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, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To join the Ebix class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2041.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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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]

EBIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Ebix, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13386&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021
Class Period: November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021

Allegations against EBIX include 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 Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid
revenue transaction cycle; and (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, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com

SOURCE: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong [GN]

EHANG HOLDINGS: April 19 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
EHang Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH)
securities from December 12, 2019 through February 16, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 19, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

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

On this news, the Company's share price fell $77.79, or
approximately 62.7%, to close at $46.30 per share on February 16,
2021, thereby injuring investors.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired EHang 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]


EHANG HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of April 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH) investors
with significant losses to submit their losses now. A securities
fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have
valuable claims.

Class Period: Dec. 9, 2019 - Feb. 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 19, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ehang
Contact An Attorney Now: EHang@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

EHang Holdings Limited (EH) Securities Litigation:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (i) E-Hang'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, Kunxiang, 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.

Investors allegedly learned the truth on February 16, 2021, when
analyst Wolfpack Research issued a scathing report about the
company. Wolfpack Research contends that Kunxiang has entered into
sham contracts to benefit EH's stock price. Wolfpack Research also
alleges that EH has exaggerated revenues by reporting sales for
which it cannot collect. Wolfpack Research further avers that EH
makes false claims about regulatory approvals the company has
purportedly received, misleadingly suggesting the company has
commercial approval for its products.

On this news, the price of EHang's shares dropped $77.79 per share
(or 62.7%) in one trading day.

"We're focused on investor losses and proving EH lied about its
revenues, customers and regulatory approvals," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are an EH investor, click
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ehang to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding EH
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new 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 Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email EHang@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]


EHANG HOLDINGS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Ehang Holdings Limited. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)
Class Period: December 12, 2019 - February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

The EH lawsuit alleges Ehang Holdings Limited made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the
class period 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in EH:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?id=13394&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

ELEVEN AUSTRALIA: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eleven Australia
North America, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eleven
Australia North America, Inc. doing business as:
ElevenAustralia.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-01177 (E.D.N.Y., March 5,
2021).

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

ELEVEN Australia -- https://elevenaustralia.com/ -- is a lifestyle
brand for the young and young at heart for the fresh and simple
approach to hair and body care.[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


EPIC GAMES: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Fortnite Loot Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tassi, writing for Forbes, reports that while the "big"
Fortnite lawsuit right now is Epic Games and its Godzilla-like
battle against Apple and the iOS store, that hasn't been the only
time they've gone to court. And now, that may benefit you, albeit
in a kind of weird way.

Epic was faced with a class-action lawsuit about loot boxes that it
has decided to settle, and now it's awarding 1,000 V-Bucks to all
players who qualify. How do you qualify? If you purchased any of
the Fortnite: Save the World or Rocket League loot boxes that were
sold starting in 2015. For this, you don't have to submit a claim,
you will simply log in and find 1,000 V-Bucks in your account, but
there may be a way to get actual money as part of $26.5 million in
cash allotted for this settlement.

Why did this happen in the first place? From the lawsuit FAQ:

"The lawsuit alleges that Epic Games violated state consumer
protection laws, prevented minors from exercising their contractual
disaffirmation rights, and negligently misrepresented the value of
its in-game items in connection with its Fortnite and Rocket League
video games."

So, Epic was not found "guilty" of this, but instead decided to
settle with the note that the settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing on its end. The lawsuit was based on the US, but Epic
has decided to give the 1,000 V-Bucks to anyone around the world
who bought the loot boxes.

The way to get additional, potential real-life money from this
settlement is a little more tricky. You need to submit a separate
claim form (documents which are not even online yet), and the
condition there is if you made the loot box purchase as a minor
without parental permission, in which case you could get an actual,
monetary refund in addition the V-Bucks. The catch is that you
would have to close the Epic Games account you created to buy the
loot boxes when you were a minor, so I doubt many people are going
to go down this road.

You also have the option to exclude yourself from this settlement,
as receiving it will mean you can't ever sue Epic about this
complaint again. So uh, if you want, you can do that too. Again,
probably not going to be a popular option.

Class action lawsuits like these are always kind of weird and don't
usually get the people affected all that much unless they're very
serious if we're talking about wrongful death and health issues and
things like that. But for video game loot boxes, $10 in fake
Fortnite money is about the best you can hope for. I don't know
when the V-Bucks go out, but it should be soon. [GN]


ERIE INSURANCE: Sued Over Withholdings of Labor From ACV Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Zeisset and Coleen Zeisset, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:21-cv-00261-RJD (S.D. Ill., March 5, 2021), seeks to remedy the
improper withholdings of labor from the Plaintiffs' and class
members' actual cash value ("ACV") payments.

This lawsuit concerns only ACV coverage for buildings and
structures. This lawsuit does not concern replacement cost value
("RCV") coverage. All the claims in the complaint only concern
property insurance coverage for structural damage (e.g., homes,
buildings and other structures) and not personal property (e.g.,
clothes and furniture). Pursuant to the Defendant's property
insurance policy forms at issue, ACV payments are to be made
prospectively, that is, prior to the policyholder undertaking
repairs to damaged buildings and structures. On the other hand, RCV
payments are made retrospectively, after repairs have been
completed.

The Defendant calculates ACV under the "replacement cost less
depreciation" ("RCLD") methodology. When calculating ACV for
buildings and structures under the RCLD methodology, Defendant
estimates the full amount of labor and new materials required to
repair or replace the property, then subtracts depreciation for
physical deterioration. Courts in several jurisdictions hold that
the RCLD methodology is reasonably intended to result in an ACV
payment to the policyholder in an amount that allows the
policyholder to return the damaged property to its status quo ante,
thereby precluding the withholding of labor from ACV payments.

This lawsuit concerns the withholding of certain labor costs that
the Defendant itself, through its computerized claims estimating
software, has determined will be incurred if the policyholders
undertake repairs. However, this lawsuit does not concern labor
that is expressly permitted to be withheld under the express terms
of the Defendant's insurance policies. Regardless of the artificial
label affixed by the property insurer to the practice of
withholding labor from an ACV payment, the result is the
same--namely, a deficient ACV payment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs owned a dwelling and other structures located in
Highland, Illinois.

The Defendant is authorized to sell property insurance policies in
the State of Illinois and is engaged in the insurance business in
the State of Illinois, including Madison County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas J. Winters, Esq.
          THE WINTERS LAW GROUP, LLC
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 499-5200
          Fax: (314) 499-5201
          Email: dwinters@winterslg.com

               - and -

          J. Bandon McWherter, Esq.
          McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144
          Email: brandon@msb.law

               - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-225-3731
          Facsimile: 859-225-3830
          Email: edp@austinmehr.com

               - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          Larson King, LLP
          30 E. 7th Street, Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (651) 312-6500
          Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com


ESKINA 214: Ortiz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO ORTIZ, HENRY FLORES, and MARIO FLORES, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. ESKINA 214
CORP. d/b/a CAFE TABACO & RON, ISMAEL GARCIA, and WILLIAM SEGURA,
Case No. (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including overtime due to fixed salary, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs additionally allege that the Defendants unlawfully
retaliated against them, in violation of the FLSA, and thus seeks
to additionally recover from Defendants economic and punitive
damages.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt employees including
delivery persons, waiters, servers, hosts, bartenders, barbacks,
bouncers, porters, runners, busboys, food preparers, chefs, cooks,
and dishwashers employed by the Defendants on or after the date
that is six years before the filing of the complaint in this case.

The Defendants have owned and operated restaurant under the trade
name "CAFE TOBACO & RON" located at 501 West 214th Street, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Matthews Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth A. Matthews, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01089-MSG (E.D. Pa.,
March 5, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act for Other Statutes: Consumer Credit.

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 is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Markey St. Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 735-8600
          Fax: (215) 940-8000
          Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


F.R. GENERAL: Maryland Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in Rojas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN CARLOS TERRONES ROJAS, et al. v. F.R. GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Case No. 1529 (Md. Spec. App.), the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment entered
by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in favor of the
Appellees.

The Appellants, Juan Carlos Terrones Rojas and Jose Carlos Rueda
Torres were employed by the Appellees, F.R. General and Commercial
Interiors, Inc., to perform carpentry work at the MGM National
Harbor resort and casino ("MGM") located in Prince George's County,
Maryland.  They worked on the MGM construction site for
approximately two months, from late 2015 through early 2016.

The Appellants gained access to the construction site at the MGM by
parking at the Rosecroft Raceway and riding a shuttle bus provided
by Whiting Turner Contracting Co., the general contractor for the
MGM project, at no cost to appellants.  They went through security
and clocked-in upon reaching the MGM construction site. At the end
of their shifts, appellants rode a shuttle back to their vehicles
parked at Rosecroft.

The Appellants stated they were told to park at the Rosecroft lot
and to ride a shuttle to the MGM construction site at an
orientation conducted by Whiting-Turner.  A Whiting-Turner project
safety manager testified that workers were not told they were
required to take a shuttle from the Rosecroft lot.  He further
testified that workers were not permitted to park in delineated
nearby lots but could be dropped-off in those lots or park in other
lots that were not explicitly prohibited. He also relayed that
employees were permitted to take public transportation or use the
ride-sharing app, Uber.  No employee parking was available at the
construction site.

The Appellants were not compensated for wait and travel time on the
shuttle, or time spent passing through security upon entry and
departure from the MGM site.  The driving distance from the
Rosecroft lot to the construction site is approximately two and
one-half miles. Appellees did not track the amount of time
appellants spent waiting and traveling between Rosecroft and the
MGM site.  While waiting for and riding the shuttle bus, the
Appellants did not receive work directives or instructions; load or
maintain tools or equipment; don or doff protective or specialty
equipment; or perform any construction work.  All construction work
was performed by appellants at the MGM site.

The Appellants filed a Complaint and Jury Demand on April 5, 2018,
and the Appellees filed an Answer on Aug. 30, 2018.  Thereafter,
the Appellants filed a Memorandum in Support of their Motion for
Class Certification and requested a hearing and the Appellees filed
a Memorandum in Opposition.

On April 9, 2019, the court entered an order finding that the
Appellants "failed to meet their burden of proof on both the
numerosity and commonality factors under Maryland Rule 2-231(a)"
and denied the Appellants' motion.  The Appellants then filed a
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Class Certification and Request for
Hearing and a Supplement and appellees filed their opposition.  On
June 5, 2019, the circuit court entered an order, again, denying
their motion, finding that appellants failed to meet the numerosity
and commonality requirements.

On July 12, 2019, the Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
and on July 24, 2019, the Appellants filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  Both parties filed their respective responses
and oppositions.  The Appellants then filed a Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, or in the Alternative, Second Motion to
Reconsider Denial of Class Certification, Motion for Sanctions, and
to Shorten Time, and Request for Hearing.  At a motions hearing on
Aug. 21, 2019, the court bifurcated the case on the issues of
liability and damages and reserved ruling on the issue of class
certification until a trial on the merits.

A jury trial was held from Aug. 26, 2019 through Aug. 29, 2019. At
the close of evidence, the Appellees made a motion for judgment,
which the court granted.  On Sept. 12, 2019, the court granted a
judgment in favor of the Appellees.

The Appellants timely appealed and present the following questions
for the Court's review:

      1. Did the Circuit Court err in granting the Appellees'
motion for judgment at the close of the Appellants' evidence based
upon the federal Portal-to-Portal Act and contrary to Maryland law
under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and the Code of Maryland Regulations?

      2. Did the Circuit Court err in dismissing the entire action
when appellees did not move for judgment on the Appellants' unjust
enrichment claim?

      3. Did the Circuit Court err in denying the Appellants'
motion for class certification, motion to reconsider, and renewed
motion for class certification in relying on assertions and
proffers of the Appellees in the face of appellants' sworn
testimony?

The Court of Special Appeals concludes there was no error.

First, based on its examination of the record, the Court finds that
carpentry at the MGM worksite was the Appellants' job function and
principal activity.  Rosecroft was not a worksite because, while
there, the Appellants were not engaged in activities that were part
of their functions as carpenters.  Thus, the Appellants were not
entitled to travel time from the Rosecroft parking lot to the MGM
worksite and the circuit court did not err in granting the
Appellees' motion for judgment.

Next, on the record in the case, the Court holds that the Appellees
moved for judgment on all claims for liability and the court's
ruling was in direct response to their motion.  Thus, the court did
not err.  Assuming, arguendo, the lower court did not understand
appellees' motion to encompass the unjust enrichment claim, the
Court finds that the court's determination that the Appellants did
not perform compensable work when parking and riding the shuttle is
dispositive of the unjust enrichment claim.  As the Court
previously explained, unjust enrichment is a "quasi-contract"
remedy "to provide relief for a plaintiff when an enforceable
contract does not exist but fairness dictates that the plaintiff
receive compensation for services provided."  In the case, the
court found that the Appellants did not perform compensable
services or work when parking and riding the shuttle.  Therefore,
the circuit court properly dismissed the unjust enrichment claim.

Finally, the Court holds that the circuit court's decision to
bifurcate the trial served the purpose of Rule 2-503 in that, if
there was no liability, the issue of class certification would be
moot and there would be no need for a trial on the issue of
damages.  It also observes that the Appellants' second motion to
reconsider class certification alternatively invited the court to
reserve ruling on its motion.  The Court, therefore, hold the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion and acted pursuant to
Rule 2-503(b) by bifurcating the issues of damages and liability.
Due to the court's finding of no liability, the issue of class
certification is moot.

For these reasons, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the
judgments of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.  Costs
will be paid by the Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zrudjc5y from Leagle.com.


FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Wasvary Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK K. WASVARY, P.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01518 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
market for social advertising. The Defendant has maintained its
monopoly power through an anticompetitive scheme to (a) neutralize
any potential competition from tens of thousands of mobile and
mobile-friendly apps built using Facebook's own platform, (b)
conscript apps on its platform to bootstrap through large
advertising purchases Facebook's fledgling NEKO mobile advertising
product with restrictive tying agreements, and (c) acquire, kill,
or clone competitors that could rival Facebook as a source of
social user data, which would in turn threaten Facebook as a
preeminent and unopposed platform for social advertising. As a
direct result, Facebook was able to charge supracompetitive prices
for social advertisements to thousands of people and businesses,
including the Plaintiff, the suit adds.

Mark K. Wasvary, P.C. is a law firm in Troy, Michigan.

Facebook, Inc. is a social networking service company based in
Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
         ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
         155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 986-1400
         Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
         E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com

                   - and –

         Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
         Brant Penney, Esq.
         REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
         332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (651) 287-2100
         Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
         E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

                   - and –

         William G. Caldes, Esq.
         Jeffrey Spector, Esq.
         Mary Ann Geppert, Esq.
         SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
         2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300
         Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
         E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com
                 JSpector@srkattorneys.com
                 MGeppert@ srkattorneys.com

FEDCA SCRAP: Martinez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCIO MARTINEZ RUBIO v. FEDCA SCRAP RECYCLING CORP, and ELBER
A. BARON, Individually, Case No. 8:21-cv-00372 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 17,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of others
similarly situated seeking to recover overtime compensation for all
overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked in excess of 40 hours over
week during his employment with the Defendants for which he was not
compensated by the Defendant at a rate of time and one half his
regular hourly rate.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 22,
2014 to October 6, 2020. He worked for the Defendants as a full
time Crane Operator and performed other general maintenance for the
Defendants.

Fedca Scrap is a full-service metal recycler serving the greater
Tampa Bay area. Mr. Baron was an officer, director, manager, owner,
and/or operator of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
                  debbie@fgbolaw.com

FORD MOTOR: McCarthy Tetrault Attorney Discusses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Williams, Esq. -- pwilliams@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tétrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Britton v.
Ford Motor Company of Canada, 2021 ABQB 17 demonstrates that
substantially similar class actions in different Canadian
jurisdictions can pose headaches for defendants because Canada
lacks a national structure for managing them. The case also
demonstrates the sometimes slower pace of litigation in Canada (on
average) relative to other jurisdictions, particularly the United
States.

The case related to alleged engine defects. In 2012, the Merchant
Law Group (MLG) filed a proposed national class action in
Saskatchewan; Kevin Whittal was the proposed representative
plaintiff. There was little activity in the Saskatchewan action and
by 2020 no certification hearing had been scheduled.

Mr. Britton -- also represented by MLG -- filed a substantially
identical action in Alberta in 2019 because of the delays in the
Saskatchewan action. The defendants applied to stay the Alberta
action as an abuse of process because the actions were
substantially identical and managed by the same plaintiff firm --
Mr. Whittal and Mr. Britton were even cooperating on some issues.

However, with reference to precedents from across Canada, the court
held that competing proposed national class actions are not
inherently or presumptively abusive. As the court noted, there is
no Canadian national class action coordination procedure comparable
to multidistrict litigation in the United States. Therefore,
overlapping and competing actions are common and managing even
substantially identical actions is difficult.

Defendants applying to stay one of several competing proposed class
actions also bear the onus of proving that it serves no legitimate
purpose. In this case the defendants failed in their attempt to
reverse that onus.

MLG nevertheless tried to justify the action because (i) of the
delays in Saskatchewan and (ii) it would preserve limitation
periods in Alberta. The court held that the first justification was
unsatisfactory because similar actions by effectively the same
party should be discouraged -- MLG had significant influence over
the progress of the Saskatchewan action and the plaintiffs were
cooperative.

On limitation periods, the court held that "sometimes commencing an
action later is better than never" (para. 29), even if the Alberta
action was filed many years after the vehicles were made and Mr.
Britton apparently learned of the alleged defect.

Ultimately, the court preferred to deal with limitation periods at
certification and therefore refused the stay. Alberta's Class
Proceedings Act requires the court to consider whether it would
preferable for the proposed common issues to be resolved in a
competing class action when resolving a certification application.
The court directed the parties to address the limitation period
issues and the impact of potential coordination between Alberta and
Saskatchewan in that context. The court concluded by forewarning
MLG that it would ask for a substantive proposal to address the
parallel actions at certification. [GN]


FRANKLIN COUNTY, MO: Mo. App. Flips Judgment in Blankenship Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY D. BLANKENSHIP, Appellant v. FRANKLIN COUNTY
COLLECTOR, ET AL., Respondent, Case No. ED108824 (Mo. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Eastern District, Division
Four, reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff Blankenship, individually and on behalf of a certified
class of owners of real estate and personal property ("Taxpayers")
in the Strain-Japan R-XVI School District, sued to challenge the
District's operating funds tax levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018.  The Taxpayers alleged the District erroneously
determined the highest rate of tax it could levy without additional
voter approval in each of those years.

Specifically, the Taxpayers contended the tax levies for those
years were improperly adjusted using section 137.073.5(2).  They
argued a tax levy calculated under section 137.073.5(2) may be used
only if it is lower than the tax levy authorized by article X,
section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution ("Hancock Amendment").

The Taxpayers requested an order declaring the District's levies
for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 unlawful; enjoining the
District from collecting taxes under the unlawful levies; refunding
to Taxpayers any sums paid over the amount due on each Taxpayer's
respective tax bills when the lawful levy is used to compute the
2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax bills; and awarding
Taxpayers their costs and attorney's fees.  The trial court found
the District did not violate section 22(a) of the Hancock Amendment
or section 137.073 and Taxpayers were entitled to no refunds.  The
trial court entered judgment for the District.

The Taxpayers appeal.  In Point I, they argue the trial court erred
in determining the District's levies did not violate section 22(a)
of the Hancock Amendment.  In Point II, the Taxpayers argue the
trial court erred in determining the District's levies complied
with section 137.073 because, although section 137.073.5(2)
provides a method for the District to increase its levies in
accordance with the consumer price index ("CPI") to allow for
inflationary assessment growth, section 137.073.4(2) requires the
District to use the lowest tax levy ceiling calculated by section
137.073.5(2) or section 22(a) of the Hancock Amendment, which the
District failed to do.

In Point III, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in
determining they were not entitled to refunds on their 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax bills under section 137.073.9.  In
Point IV, they argue the trial court erred in determining they were
not entitled to refunds on their 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and
2018 tax bills under article X, section 23 of the Hancock
Amendment.  In Point V, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred
in determining all class members had to comply with section
139.031.1-2 to be entitled to refunds under section 137.073.9,
section 23 of the Hancock Amendment, or section 139.031.1.  In
Point VI, they argue the trial court erred in determining they were
not entitled to costs and attorney's fees under section 23 of the
Hancock Amendment.  In Point VII, they argue the trial court erred
in determining they were not entitled to costs and attorney's fees
under section 137.073.8.

The Appellate Court first addresses the issue of its jurisdiction
because Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution grants
exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Missouri Supreme Court of
all cases involving the constructions of revenue laws of the state.
Where an appeal involves the application of revenue laws already
construed by the Missouri Supreme Court, jurisdiction lies with the
Court and it bound to apply the Missouri Supreme Court's precedent.
The questions in the appeal have been resolved by prior decisions
of the Missouri Supreme Court.  Because the case involves the
application of revenue laws already authoritatively construed, the
Appellate Court determines jurisdiction is properly vested in the
Court.

In Point I, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in
determining the District's tax levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018 did not violate section 22(a) of the Hancock
Amendment.  They argue the trial court's finding that the term
"levy" as used in section 22(a) means the amount of tax revenue and
not the rate of taxation is erroneous.

The Appellate Court opines that the trial court's finding that the
term "levy" as used in section 22(a) means the amount of tax
revenue and not the rate of taxation is erroneous and contrary to
Missouri law.  Given the trial court's erroneous definition of the
term "levy" as used in section 22(a), the trial court's conclusion
that "Section 22 of the Hancock Amendment is not invoked unless
there is first an increase in the amount of tax revenue which a
political subdivision assesses" is also erroneous.  The plain
language of section 22(a) shows the Hancock Amendment is violated
when the current levy, or rate, of a tax exceeds the actual levy in
effect when the Hancock Amendment was adopted or last approved by
the voters.  Hence, the District's tax levies for 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, 2017, and 2018 violated section 22(a) of the Hancock
Amendment.  Point I is granted.

In Point II, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in
determining the District's tax levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018 complied with section 137.073 because, although
section 137.073.5(2) provides a method for the District to increase
its tax levy in accordance with the CPI to allow for inflationary
assessment growth, section 137.073.4(2) required the District to
use the lowest tax levy ceiling calculated by section 137.073.5(2)
or section 22(a) of the Hancock Amendment, which the District
failed to do.  They argue section 137.073 cannot be used to
increase the tax levy ceiling beyond that provided by section 22(a)
of the Hancock Amendment.

The Appellate Court holds that the District violated section
137.073 in setting its tax levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018 by failing to use the calculation that produces the lowest
tax levy ceiling, as required by section 137.073.4(2) and section
137.073.2.  Neither party asserts the District increased its tax
levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 to recoup
revenues it was entitled to receive due to clerical errors or
corrections in the calculation or recordation of any assessed
valuation from prior years under section 137.073.3.  Scholle v.
Carrollton R-VII Sch. Dist., 771 S.W.2d 336, 336 (Mo. banc 1989),
does not stand for the proposition that a school district may
ensure its revenues stay constant by increasing its tax levies
beyond the tax levy ceiling provided in section 22(a) when it
experiences a decrease in assessed valuations within its
boundaries. The trial court's determination to the contrary is
erroneous.  Point II is granted.

In Point III, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in
determining they were not entitled to refunds of the unlawful taxes
collected by the District in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018
under section 137.073.9.  Section 137.073.8 allows a taxpayer who
has cause to believe a taxing authority has not complied with
section 137.073 to challenge the tax levy by making a formal
complaint with the prosecuting attorney of the county.  If the
prosecutor fails to bring an action within 10 days of the
complaint's filing, section 137.073.8 states the taxpayer may bring
a class action challenging the taxing authority's compliance with
section 137.073.

The Appellate Court finds that because no action requesting
injunctive relief regarding the District's tax levies for 2013,
2014, 2015, or 2016 was brought before December 31 in each of those
years, the Taxpayers may not have refunds of the amounts
erroneously paid in 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2016 under section
137.073.9.  The also Taxpayers cannot seek to enjoin taxes already
collected.  However, because a Petition challenging the District's
2017 tax levy and requesting injunctive relief was filed before
Dec. 31, 2017, and a Second Amended Petition challenging the
District's 2018 tax levy and requesting injunctive relief was filed
before Dec. 31, 2018, injunctive action was timely instituted
regarding the District's tax levies for 2017 and 2018.  Under
section 137.073.9, the Taxpayers are entitled to a refund of the
taxes they erroneously paid for 2017 and 2018.

On remand, the Appellate Court instructs the trial court to
calculate the proper refunds due to Taxpayers for 2017 and 2018
under section 137.073.9 in accordance with its opinion.  Point III
is granted in part and denied in part.

In Point IV, Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in determining
they were not entitled to refunds of the unlawful taxes collected
by the District in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 under
section 23 of the Hancock Amendment.  Even though the District used
a higher tax levy in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 than
that approved by the voters in 2012 in violation of section 22(a),
section 23 of the Hancock Amendment is not a vehicle for Taxpayers
to obtain the relief they seek.

The Appellate Court opines that Section 23 has not been read by the
Missouri Supreme Court to be a consent to suit for money judgment,
as such consent is absent from its plain language and would have to
be inferred or implied.  Further, allowing such suits for money
judgment under section 23 would "thwart" one main purpose of the
Hancock Amendment, which "is to limit expenditures by state and
local government."  The Court says the Taxpayers are not entitled
to refunds of the unlawful taxes collected by the District in 2013,
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 under section 23.  Statutory
authority for the refund of taxes is required.  Point IV is
denied.

In Point V, the Taxpayers argue the trial court erred in
determining all class members were required to comply with section
139.031.1-2 to be entitled to refunds under section 137.073.9,
section 23 of the Hancock Amendment, or section 139.031.1.

The Appellate Court holds that the trial court did not enter the
ruling suggested by Taxpayers.  Its review of the trial court's
conclusions of law shows Taxpayers misconstrue the substance of the
trial court's holding.  The class members Blankenship represents
are not entitled to refunds of the taxes they erroneously paid for
2017 and 2018 under section 139.031.1.  The class members
Blankenship represents are only entitled to refunds of the taxes
they erroneously paid for 2017 and 2018 under section 137.073.9, as
explained in Point III.  Point V is denied.

Finally, in Points VI and VII, the Taxpayers argue the trial court
erred in determining they were not entitled to costs and attorney's
fees under section 23 of the Hancock Amendment or section
137.073.8.

The Appellate Court holds that the District violated section 22(a)
of the Hancock Amendment and section 137.073 in setting its tax
levies for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.  The trial
court's holding to the contrary is erroneous.  Accordingly, the
Taxpayers are entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees
incurred pursuing the underlying action under either section 23 of
the Hancock Amendment or section 137.073.8.  The motion for
attorney's fees on appeal is granted.  On remand, the Court
instructs the trial court to calculate and include the reasonable
costs and attorney's fees Taxpayers are entitled to on appeal.
Points VI and VII are granted.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Philip M. Hess, writing for the
Appellate Court, reversed the judgment of the trial court.  He
remanded to the trial court with instructions to make specific
findings and calculate the appropriate refunds due to Taxpayers for
2017 and 2018 under section 137.073.9 and to determine the
reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by Taxpayers in
maintaining the lawsuit in the trial court and on appeal under
section 23 of the Hancock Amendment or section 137.073.8.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2avsj5w from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Battery Packs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that another
class-action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors over its
temporary fix for the Chevy Bolt EV battery fires, which reduces
the maximum capacity of the vehicle's lithium-ion battery pack by
10 percent.

This latest class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan by Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Markovits, and Stock & DeMarco,
LLC. The suit accuses GM of concealing various defects with the 60
kWh lithium-ion battery pack found in the electric vehicles, which
can allegedly cause the battery pack to overheat when the vehicle
is nearly or fully charged.

This lawsuit references the recall that GM issued for 2017 to 2019
model year Chevy Bolt EV models last year. That recall, which
involved over 69,000 units, was sent out after the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration received numerous reports from owners
of Chevy Bolt EV models who claimed their vehicle spontaneously
caught fire when it was parked and/or charging. GM eventually
issued a software update that prevented the batteries from
overheating, however this update will reduce the battery capacity
to 90 percent of its original limit, diminishing the vehicle's
usable range.

The plaintiff says that GM's temporary fix means owners aren't
getting the same range out of the vehicle as was originally
advertised to them. It also says the vehicles have lost resale
value due to GM's apparent inability to properly address the
battery issues.

GM Authority reached out to Chevy for an update on the Chevy Bolt
EV recall. The automaker told us it did not yet have a permanent
fix for the solution, but expects to have one ready by April.

"We have hundreds of engineers working around the clock on the
issue and we have made progress on identifying the cause and
potential remedies," a Chevy spokesperson said.

A separate class-action lawsuit was filed against GM over this
matter in December of last year. That suit was filed in Illinois
and accuses GM of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well
as committing fraudulent concealment/fraud by omission. [GN]


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Cantor Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CANTOR, ASHLEY ALLEN, DOMINICK GROSSI, ANTHONY HARRISON,
HEATHER HYDEN, LISA LOSIEWICZ, HALEY SAMS, and VITO SCAROLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-03402 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant for its negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging, or
advertising of, or statements concerning the Defendant's baby food
products.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew
that the presence of toxic heavy metals in their baby food was a
material fact to consumers, yet omitted and concealed the unsafe
level of heavy metals from consumers. The Defendant's baby foods
bear no label or warning to parents that it contains dangerous
levels of toxic heavy metals, the suit says.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               -and-

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Zachary Rynar, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com
                  zrynar@sgtlaw.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Keeter Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN KEETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00269-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., March 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
labeling and representations of baby food products. The Defendant's
promises, warranties, pricing, statements, claims, marketing and
advertising center on representations that are intended to, and do,
convey to consumers that their products, including their baby food
products, possess certain qualities and characteristics. The
Plaintiff and Class members did not know that, contrary to the
representations on the products' labels, the products contained
heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, at levels that
are above what is considered safe for babies. The Plaintiff and
Class members were injured because they paid a premium for the
products based on the Defendants' misrepresentations, the suit
says.

Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
         BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
         Joshua Gunnell House, Suite 4
         4023 Chain Bridge Road
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (602) 776-5903
         Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
         E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

                - and –

         Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
         600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 798-4593
         E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

                - and –

         Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
         2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Telephone: (602) 274-1100
         Facsimile: (602) 274-1199

GLOBAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Claims in Constantinou Partly Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, POLYXENI CONSTANTINOU, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GLOBAL
FINANCIAL CREDIT, LLC, a Delaware Corporation d/b/a MedChex, and
ATHLETICO, LTD., an Illinois Corporation, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 1-19-2325 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for
the First District affirmed in part and reversed in part the
circuit court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

In her July 24, 2018, class action complaint in the matter,
Plaintiff Constantinou alleged that she suffered personal injuries
in a vehicular accident on Dec. 2, 2016, and sought treatment from
Defendant Athletico, a provider of physical therapy services.  On
June 14, 2017, Athletico sent a document titled "Notice of Health
Professional Lien" to Ms. Constantinou's personal injury attorney.
In it, Athletico claimed a lien in the amount of $11,943 -- its
charges for health care services rendered to Ms. Constantinou --
against any recovery she might obtain from the unnamed party or
parties responsible for her injuries.

A little over two months later, on Aug. 25, 2017, Ms.
Constantinou's attorney received another letter from Athletico,
stating in part, "we have partnered with MedChex to manage the
medical receivable(s) listed" and "from this day forward we ask
that you correspond with them as it relates to obtaining lien
satisfaction payoff amounts."  On the same day, Ms. Constantinou's
attorney received correspondence from Defendant MedChex, titled
"Notice of MedChex Medical Lien," which stated "MedChex is now the
billing company for the above and has taken assignment for a
medical lien in the amount of $11,943 for services rendered to Ms.
Constantinou."

Ms. Constantinou alleged that both lien notices were defective in
several technical respects, including that they did not name the
individual who had injured her and they were served on her attorney
rather than on her directly.  Ms. Constantinou's core allegation,
however, was that Athletico lacked authority to assign its lien
and, in attempting to do so, had violated section 10(e) of the
Health Care Services Lien Act.

Seeking to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated
individuals who, in or after 2013, had been served with notices of
liens purportedly assigned to MedChex, Ms. Constantinou asserted
claims against Athletico and MedChex for (1) violation of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud
Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2016)), (2) unjust enrichment,
(3) injunctive relief, (4) negligence, (5) negligent
misrepresentation, and (6) declaratory relief.

Ms. Constantinou alleged that by serving unauthorized notices of
MedChex liens, the Defendants had misrepresented or concealed from
her and the proposed class that (1) Athletico had no authority to
assign its liens to MedChex and (2) MedChex, as a non-health care
provider, had no authority to serve or present notice of a lien
under the Lien Act to her for payment.  She alleged that, as a
proximate result of these misrepresentations or omissions, she and
other members of the proposed class had suffered "damages including
but not limited to any loss from settlement funds claimed by
Defendants, with interest."  She Constantinou sought to enjoin the
Defendants from making similar misrepresentations or omissions in
the future and, in her prayer for relief, asked the court to enter
an order "requiring that the Defendants release and extinguish any
and all liens assigned by ATHLETICO."

Ms. Constantinou also sought "a judgment declaring Defendants
committed deceptive, unfair and illegal acts, were negligent and
engaged in negligent misrepresentation, and violated 770 ILCS 23/1,
23/10(b) [notice requirements], and 23/10(e) [direct payment
requirement], et seq., all to the Plaintiff's and the Class'
detriment and damage."  She asserted that she was entitled to this
declaratory relief because she had "a continuing, ongoing, actual
and legal tangible interest in the monies owed to her and the
Class" and the Defendants had an "ongoing opposing interest in the
purported validity of the subject liens and the assignment
thereof."

The Defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Constantinou's complaint
pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code).
The Court held a hearing on Feb. 15, 2019, and allowed extended
argument by the parties.  At the conclusion of that hearing, it
granted the motions and dismissed Ms. Constantinou's claims with
prejudice.

On March 18, 2019, Ms. Constantinou simultaneously moved the court
to vacate or reconsider its dismissal order and for leave to file
an amended complaint.  She argued that the court had ignored the
illegality of the lien assignment and improperly focused on a
request made in her prayer for relief that Athletico release the
accompanying debt, which she argued was not part of her claims and
should not have been construed together with them. Ms. Constantinou
also argued that dismissal with prejudice had not been warranted
because additional facts included in her proposed amended complaint
would bolster her damages allegations.

Ms. Constantinou's proposed amended complaint altered only her
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.  Her other claims
were incorporated by reference to preserve them for appeal.  Her
amended claim for injunctive relief focused not on enjoining
defendants from misrepresenting that Athletico liens could be
validly assigned to MedChex, as her initial complaint had, but on
preventing defendants from engaging in such transactions in the
future. Her amended claim for declaratory relief asserted, as her
initial complaint had, that Ms. Constantinou had an ongoing
interest in the use of her settlement proceeds and that defendants
had an "ongoing opposing interest in the purported validity of the
Athletico assignment of the lien."  Omitting any reference to
findings of liability on her other freestanding claims, she sought
only a declaration that the lien had been "improperly assigned" and
that this had caused the proceeds from her personal injury
settlement to be wrongfully impaired or encumbered.

In their joint response, the Defendants argued that the circuit
court had "correctly concluded that even if MedChex's purported
lien was invalid, the underlying debt for Athletico's services was
not extinguished," and "Athletico continued to have a valid and
enforceable lien even assuming that it could not assign that lien
to MedChex."  They further argued that Ms. Constantinou could not
move for leave to amend, as she might have done prior to a final
judgment under section 2-616(a) of the Code.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court dismissed Ms.
Constantinou's complaint with prejudice on Feb. 15, 2019, and
denied her motions for reconsideration and for leave to file an
amended complaint on Oct. 22, 2019.  Ms. Constantinou filed a
timely notice of appeal from those orders on Nov. 13, 2019.

On appeal, Ms. Constantinou argues that the circuit court erred by
dismissing her claims against the Defendants for consumer fraud,
unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
injunctive and declaratory relief.  She argues in the alternative
that she should have been granted leave to amend her claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Appellate Court first considers whether dismissal was proper.
Ms. Constantinou's claims stem from her allegation that section
10(e) of the Act prohibits the assignment of health care services
liens to third parties.  In support of this reading of the statute,
Ms. Constantinou cites the Appellate Court's decision in Wilson v.
F.B. McAfoos & Co.  In Wilson, it held that "where the legislature
does not provide for the assignability of a statutory lien, it does
not intend for that lien to be assignable."

The Plaintiff has alleged that, notwithstanding the Court's holding
in Wilson, one of the Defendants in the case -- a healthcare
provider from whom she received medical treatment following a
personal injury -- attempted to assign its statutory lien against
her personal injury settlement to the other Defendant -- a billing
company and non-healthcare provider.  Ms. Constantinou insists
that, in dismissing her complaint, the circuit court disregarded
the Court's holding in Wilson.

The Appellate Court does not share this view.  Both the Defendants
and the circuit court appear to have assumed, at least for purposes
of these motions to dismiss, that a lien assignment from Athletico
to MedChex would have been invalid.  However, in the Court's view,
this would not give rise to a claim if Ms. Constantinou suffered no
harm from the assertion of an invalid assignment.  The Appellate
Court agrees with Ms. Constantinou that she properly alleged she
was damaged by the fact that an invalid lien was used to deprive
her of money that she was entitled to possess -- subject to the
right of the holder of the debt to take other legal action to
collect it -- because as long as that lien was pending, her lawyer
was required to hold that money in his IOLTA account.

The Appellate Court thinks it is apparent that what got lost in the
extensive briefing and argument in the circuit court is that the
question underlying Ms. Constantinou's claims has never been who is
ultimately entitled to all or part of the $12,000 now held in her
attorney's IOLTA account.  MedChex may well be entitled to this
money because it purchased the debt that Ms. Constantinou incurred
to Athletico.  Rather, the question is who is entitled to the
present use of those funds pending resolution of the debt. If
neither MedChex nor Athletico has a valid lien, then regardless of
whether Ms. Constantinou still owes money for her care, her
settlement funds should not be kept from her.

And, although it agrees with the bases for dismissal of the
Plaintiff's equitable claims, the Appellate Court holds that it is
clear from the record that the circuit court only dismissed these
claims with prejudice because it believed Ms. Constantinou was
incapable of alleging harm flowing from defendants' communications.
Because it disagrees with that conclusion, and because the details
of the Dfendants' transaction are unclear but are likely to be
revealed through discovery, the Appeallte Court finds dismissal of
these claims with prejudice is unwarranted at this early juncture.

Finally, because it concludes that Ms. Constantinou's initial
complaint adequately stated claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief, there is no need for the Appellate Court to consider
whether the circuit court erred in denying her leave to amend those
claims.

For the reasons stated, the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal
of Ms. Constantinou's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
and affirmed the dismissal of her claims for consumer fraud, unjust
enrichment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.  It
disagreed with the circuit court's basis for dismissing those
claims with prejudice and instead concluded that Ms. Constantinou
adequately alleged she was damaged by the Defendants' conduct.
Because it is possible that grounds for successfully amending one
or more of the dismissed claims could arise during discovery,
dismissal of those claims is without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2tcsdr4a from Leagle.com.

Larry D. Drury -- ldd@larrydrury.com -- and Thomas M. Rebholz, of
Larry D. Drury Ltd., of Chicago, and John H. Alexander --
john@jalexanderlaw.com -- of John H. Alexander & Associates, LLC,
of Chicago, for appellant.

Christine E. Skoczylas -- christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com -- of
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, of Chicago, and E. King Poor --
king.poor@quarles.com -- and John A. Aramanda --
john.aramanda@quarles.com -- of Quarles & Brady LLP, of Chicago,
for appellees.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator IPO-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action suit
related to Venator Materials PLC's $522 million August 2017 initial
public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity
offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District
Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed
beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's
$522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million
December 2017 secondary equity offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders.

GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August
2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common
stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing
an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million.

On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

On February 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in the federal action.

On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the New York
state court action.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk XP IPO-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities
class action suit related to XP Inc.'s $2.3 billion December 2019
initial public offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York
Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020,
relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial
public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include XP, certain of its officers and directors and certain of
its shareholders.

GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December
2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $522 million.

On August 5, 2020, defendants' motion to stay the state court
action in favor of the federal court action was denied, and on
August 21, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
filed in the state court action.

On September 14, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint filed in the federal court action.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
related to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, is
pending.

The company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action
relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed
on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The amended consolidated complaint, filed on October 29, 2020,
asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with
alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary
market for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble and punitive damages and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on December 15, 2020.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Toss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation related to the sale of
U.S. Treasury securities remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Bid in Uber Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
for class certification filed by the plaintiff in the putative
class action suit related to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion
May 2019 initial public offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC  (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion
May 2019 initial public offering.

addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.6 billion. On November 16, 2020, the court in the
state court action granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed on February 11, 2020, and on
December 16, 2020, plaintiffs appealed.

On August 7, 2020, defendants' motion to dismiss the district court
action was denied.

On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the district court action
moved for class certification. On December 5, 2020, the plaintiffs
in the state court action filed a complaint in the district court,
which was consolidated with the existing district court action on
January 25, 2021.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.

GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, McCready Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANETTE MCCREADY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01229-JD
(D.D.C., Feb. 19, 2021) is a class action for damages, injunctive
relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws
alleging that the Plaintiff and the putative Class have overpaid or
otherwise suffered economic losses due to Google's monopolization
of Android Mobile App Market.

Google's Play Store is available to mobile device users running
Google's Android operating system ("OS"). While Google claims that
the Android OS is maintained as "open" source software, Google has
allegedly engaged in course of conduct designed to deter
competition in the market for Android mobile applications of "apps"
and products sold with such apps ("Android Mobile App Market").

Plaintiff McCready is an individual who, once or more during the
time period of January 1, 2016 through the present, made payment
for a mobile app on the Google Play Store, subscription fees for a
mobile app obtained on the Google Play Store, or app content from a
mobile app downloaded from the Google App Store. The Plaintiff is a
resident of Arkansas.

Google is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies
and a search engine. Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Alphabet Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Will T. Crowder, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                  willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

GRIDDY ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Electricity Price Hike
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that the Texas power
provider that billed customers with a huge increase in electricity
prices during the recent plunge in temperatures in the state was
hit with a class action lawsuit accusing it of cashing in on a
natural disaster.

The lawsuit against Griddy Electric LLC of Houston was brought by a
resident of Mount Belvieu, Texas, seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, according to a copy of the complaint filed in state court.
[GN]

GULF COAST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barnum Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DOREKA BARNUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 121955836 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Feb.
24, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Gulf Coast Collection Bureau Inc. is a debt collection agency.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
          Telephone: (786) 469-4496

               -and-

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

               -and-

          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
          Telephone: 954-628-5793


HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, McKeon Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MCKEON, RENEE BRYAN, and MARILYN CASON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
d/b/a Earth's Best Organics, Case No. 2:21-cv-00938 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
19, 2021) is a class action complaint against Hain Celestial for
its negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence or risk
of arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium  (heavy metals) and/or
perchlorate or other ingredients in the Defendant's Earth's Best
Organic Baby Foods that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements of these products sold throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class and Sub-Classes including requiring full
disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in Defendant's
marketing, advertising, and labeling; requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and restoring
monies to the members of the proposed Classes.

Plaintiff McKeon is a resident of Plymouth, Minnesota, and
purchased Defendant's Baby Foods for her child. Plaintiff Renee
Bryan is a resident of Okeechobee, Florida, and purchased
Defendant's Baby Foods for her child. Prior to purchasing the Baby
Foods, Bryan saw Defendant's nutritional claims on the packaging,
including "Earth's Best," the "Stage" representations, and "organic
baby food," which she relied on in deciding to purchase the Baby
Foods. Plaintiff Cason is a resident of Lathrop, California, and
purchased the Defendant's Baby Foods for her children. Plaintiff
Cason purchased the Defendant's Baby Foods, Earth's Best Organic
Baby Rice Cereal.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best Organics throughout the United States. It states that
it offers "organic infant, baby, and toddler foods that are pure,
quality products you can trust" and touts that it conducts
"Rigorous product testing to guarantee quality and safety."

The Defendant's packaging and labels further emphasize its alleged
use of quality ingredients that are safe for human infant, baby,
and toddler consumption by the use of its "Earth's Best" brand
name, suggesting that the ingredients and finished product are
premium and high quality, and the representation that the Baby
Foods are "organic baby food," suggesting that it is appropriate
for consumption by babies.

However, nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and/or packaging does Defendant disclose that the Baby
Foods include and/or have a high risk of containing heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
                  klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, &
          BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Lori G. Kier, Esq.
          Davina C. Okonkwo, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0581
          E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  lgk@sstriallawyers.com
                  dco@sstriallawyers.com

HAWAII: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Kelley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLEY O'NEIL'S INC., IRISH ROSE SALOON INC., ANNA
O'BRIEN'S INC., O'TOOLE'S IRISH PUB INC., AND DOS KALBOS
ENTERPRISES LLC, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND ON BEHALF OF
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs v. DAVID Y. IGE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII; CLARE E.
CONNORS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF HAWAII; STATE OF HAWAII, KIRK CALDWELL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS MAYOR OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU, Defendants, Civ. No. 20-00449 LEK-RT. (D. Haw.), Judge
Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

The Complaint was filed as a putative class action.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the putative Class consists of all bars and venues
holding a Class 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18
liquor license, as defined by the Rules of the Liquor Commission of
the City and County of Honolulu, who have been shut down by
Defendant Governor Ige's Proclamations and Defendant Mayor
Caldwell's executive orders since March 18, 2020.

Some businesses were deemed essential and allowed to remain open,
while others, including the Plaintiffs' businesses, were not.  The
Plaintiffs assert that the State and City orders and proclamations
do not provide a pre- or post- deprivation remedy to question
'essential' or to determine whether the Plaintiffs can open with
the same health related protocols as the 'essential' businesses
allowed to open.  There was a list of businesses that were allowed
to remain open for on-premises operations and that classification
was neither reasonable nor rational, but rather random and
unsupported by data, and therefore a denial of due process.

On Oct. 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and their
Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion").  In the Complaint,
the Plaintiffs acknowledge that government officials are granted
deference when making time-sensitive decisions, but assert that no
rationale supports the decision to keep bars and nightlife venues
closed.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs assert they have been deprived
"of their liberty and property interests without due process."

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: a 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 procedural due process claim pursuant to the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("Count I"); a Section 1983
substantive due process claim pursuant to the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment ("Count II"); a Section 1983 equal
protection claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment ("Count III"); an equal protection claim
for violation of Article 1, Section 5 of the Hawai'i State
Constitution ("Count IV"); and a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
claim ("Count V").

In the instant Motion, the Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction
enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the Governor's Thirteenth
Supplementary Proclamation Related To The COVID-19 Emergency, or
Mayor Caldwell's Executive Order No. 20-27 implementing the City
and County of Honolulu's COVID-19 Recovery Framework."   On Nov.
24, 2020, Defendants David Ige, Clare E. Connors, and the State of
Hawai'i ("State") filed their memorandum in opposition to the
Motion, and Defendants Kirk Caldwell and the City and County of
Honolulu ("City") filed their memorandum in opposition to the
Motion.  On Dec. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their reply.  On
Dec. 16, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Motion.

On Dec. 17, 2020, an entering order was issued informing the
parties of the Court's ruling on the Motion.  The instant Order
supersedes that entering order.

First, the Plaintiffs do not contend that the orders and
proclamations have no real or substantial relation to public
health.  Instead, the crux of their argument is that requiring bars
and nightclubs to shut down while allowing other businesses, such
as restaurants that have bars in them, to remain open is "random,
arbitrary and unfair treatment."

Judge Kobayashi holds that the relationship between the factors
identified as conducive to COVID-19 transmission and situations
generally identified with bars and nightclubs has at least a
footing in reality.  Based on the reasoned analysis provided by the
representatives for the City and the State, she finds that the
restrictions in question have a real or substantive relation to
public health.

The second inquiry is whether the City and State Orders and
Proclamations are "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion
of rights secured by the fundamental law."

The Judge finds that the City's Orders and the State's
Proclamations affect large areas and are not directed at one or few
individuals, and therefore do not give rise to the constitutional
requirements of individual hearing and notice.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits with respect to
Count I.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' claim for substantive due
process violation fails because there are legitimate reasons the
State and the City closed the bars and nightclubs.  Given the
health expert analysis that bars present an increased risk of
COVID-19 transmission compared to other businesses, in light of
distancing concerns, ventilation concerns, the increased spread of
respiratory droplets, and the risk of decreased compliance with
protocols dues to alcohol consumption, the Judge finds that
legitimate reasons for the restrictions on bar operations exist,
and more importantly, that the City and the State could have had a
legitimate reason for closing the bars.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs
are unlikely to succeed with respect to Count II.

The Plaintiffs then argue that it is arbitrary for the State and
the City to close bars in Honolulu while other establishments that
serve alcohol remain operational.  However, the Judge holds that
the declarations of the health and emergency response experts are
persuasive, as the decision was apparently based on consideration
of the specific factors conducive to transmission to COVID-19, such
as the inability to use face coverings while drinking, poor
ventilation, mingling of households, situations where people raise
their voices, and the prevalence of those circumstances in bars
more than other types of businesses.  It follows that limiting
access to the types of environments that are more likely to allow
for the spread of COVID-19 furthers the legitimate government
interest of protecting public health.  Therefore, she finds that
the State and City orders and proclamations closing bars bear a
rational relationship to a legitimate government interest and, the
Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on Count III.
As with previous Counts, the Plaintiffs argue the decision to close
bars is unlawful because it constitutes arbitrary treatment.
However, as with their claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
experts employed by the City and the State demonstrate that the
decision was based on circumstances prevalent in bars and the
transmission of COVID-19, and therefore constitutes a rational
basis because closure furthers the legitimate government interest
of protecting public health.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs are
unlikely to succeed with respect to Count IV as well.

Next, the Judge holds that there is no dispute that the closure of
the Plaintiffs' businesses constitutes a threatened loss that is
more that purely hypothetical.  This factor weighs in favor of
granting the Plaintiff's Motion.

Finally, in the case, as other district courts have determined, the
Judge holds that the Court is not is a position to second guess the
elected officials charged with responding to public health
emergencies.  She says the State and the City faced a decision with
potentially tremendous loss on both sides.  They made the decision
to close some types of businesses in effort to slow the spread of a
deadly virus.  Neither the Court nor the Plaintiffs are in a
position to undermine those decisions.  Therefore, the final two
factors weigh against granting the Motion.

In conclusion, Judge Kobayashi fully acknowledges with a heavy
heart the emotional and economic toll the Plaintiffs' members and
shareholders must be faced with as they watch their businesses be
shuttered by the City and State governments while others are
allowed to remain open in a limited or greater capacity.  However,
she finds that the City and State have considerable discretion in
crafting their response to a public health emergency, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic, and are responsible for protecting the health of
all residents in the City and County of Honolulu and the State of
Hawai'i.  Therefore, she cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are
entitled to the extraordinary injunctive relief sought.  At this
point, the Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits, and
although they may have shown irreparable harm, the balance of the
equities and public interest weigh against issuance of a
preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/wfa3mdxc from Leagle.com.


HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL: Faces Pitre FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GINA PITRE, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated
v. HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00044-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., Feb. 19, 2021) seeks redress for
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The action also seeks injunctive relief to prevent further
violations of the FDCPA by requesting that the Court order the
Defendant to alter its practices and change its misleading name.

In a letter entitled "IMPORTANT NOTICE", the Defendant communicated
to the Plaintiff that Memorial Hospital at Gulfport had "partnered"
with Defendant "in order to resolve [the Plaintiff’s] outstanding
balance(s) before they become delinquent." The letter referenced an
account number ending in 2931 and is dated September 8, 2020. The
September 8, 2020 letter stated the amount owed, the balance owed,
and a statement in bold red lettering that states "HFA IS NOT A
COLLECTION AGENCY," the suit says.

The Plaintiff received similar letters dated September 23, 2020,
October 5, 2020, November 9, 2020, December 1, 2020, December 9,
2020, December 22, 2020, December 29, 2020, and January 5, 2020
concerning accounts ending in 3305, 9757, 2471, 8409, 4554, 0157,
5445, and 8017 respectively.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant attempted to collect a
debt unfairly or unconscionably by misrepresenting its status as a
debt collector in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692f. Because of
the the Defendant' alleged unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered
actual damages including attorneys' fees, and treatment costs
related to emotional distress.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & RAMSEY, PLLC
          429 Porter Avenue
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Telephone: (228) 875-0572
          E-mail: mike@sheehanramsey.com

HIGHBTU LIMITED: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Fischler Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. HIGHBTU LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, d/b/a
Kleenwraps, Case No. 1:21-cv-00937-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19,
2021) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Website, www.kleenwraps.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff Fischler and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. Mr.
Fischler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law
against the Defendant.

Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant
to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Fischler is, at all relevant times, a resident of
Astoria, New York, Queens County. As a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person, he is a member of a protected class of
individuals under Title III of the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. section
12102(1)-(2).

The Defendant is an online retailer of a product deigned to protect
users from germs living on surfaces. The wraps, which were first
promoted as a way to protect users from the spread of germs on
shared gym equipment, quickly became an essential item when the
COVID-19 pandemic reached spread across our Country. The wraps,
which are made from antimicrobial material can be used to open
doors, on public transportation, on gym equipment, on shopping cart
handles, and other shared surfaces. The Defendant also now sells a
reusable face mask made out of similar material. Defendant's
products are reusable and machine washable. The Defendant's Website
is heavily integrated with its online retail operations. The
Website is the exclusive point of sale for Defendant's products.
Through the Website, customers can purchase wraps, storage bags,
tubes, and face masks, learn about the return policy, learn about
wholesale orders and get contact information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com

HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Bid to Remand Gaus to State Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to remand the case, EDWARD SCOTT GAU, et al., Plaintiffs v.
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-08250-SVK (N.D. Cal.), to state court.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Los Altos Grill
restaurant in Los Altos, California, which is owned and/or operated
by Defendant Hillstone.  On Sept. 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a
class and representative action for wage and hour law violations in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Complaint defines the putative classes as follows:

      (i) all current and former non-exempt restaurant employees of
Defendants in the State of California who worked at least 3.5 hours
in any work shift since April 6, 2016 ("Rest Period Class"), and

      (ii) all current and former non-exempt restaurant employees
of Defendants in the State of California who worked more than 5.0
hours in any work shift since April 6, 2016 ("Meal Period Class").

Following service, Defendant Hillstone filed an Answer on Nov. 18,
2020.

On Nov. 23, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to the Court,
asserting that the Court has jurisdiction over the case under the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C Section 1332(d) ("CAFA") and
that the case may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).
Its notice of removal also asserts that to the extent the Court
concludes it lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over any of
the Plaintiffs' claims, it should exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a).

The Plaintiffs now move to remand the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447 on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.  They argue that the case should be remanded because
the Defendant has not established that the diversity of citizenship
or amount in controversy requirements under CAFA are satisfied.
The Defendant opposes the motion to remand.


Judge van Keulen concludes that for purposes of analyzing whether
CAFA's diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied, the
Plaintiffs were citizens of California on the relevant dates.  She
also concludes that for purposes of analyzing whether CAFA's
diversity of citizenship requirement is satisfied, the Defendant
has demonstrated that it is a citizen of Delaware (its state of
incorporation) and Arizona (the location of its principal place of
business).  Because, it has also demonstrated that the Plaintiffs
are citizens of California for diversity purposes, CAFA's diversity
of citizenship requirement is satisfied.

The Judge must next consider whether the case satisfies CAFA's
requirement that the amount in controversy is over $5 million.  The
amount in controversy is not facially apparent from the Complaint,
but the Defendant's Notice of Removal alleges that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million and contains its calculation of the
amount in controversy.  Specifically, based on its business
records, the Defendant estimates that over 3,300 employees fall
within the classes defined in the Complaint.  It also determined
that it paid the proposed class members an average hourly rate of
approximately $16.67.  Based on the number of hours worked and a
"conservative" estimated violation rate of 20%, the Defendant then
calculates that the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's rest
period and meal break claims is nearly $7.2 million.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's calculation of the amount
in controversy on the ground that the calculation includes class
action recoveries not only for class members such as Plaintiff Gau,
but also recoveries for Plaintiff Foster-Gau and others who are
subject to arbitration agreements with Defendant that included
class waivers.  They argue that the Defendant's calculation of the
amount in controversy fails to distinguish between individuals who
are and are not subject to an arbitration agreement and therefore
"relies on unreasonable assumptions."

It is well-established that in determining the amount in
controversy, the Court considers only the amount at stake in the
litigation, not the likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing.  Even
deducting the amount at issue for Plaintiff Foster-Gau, who is
arguably excluded from the proposed class in the Complaint, the
Judge holds that the amount in controversy is well over $5 million
on the Plaintiffs' rest period and meal break claims alone.  The
Plaintiffs' challenge to the amount in controversy on the basis of
the Defendant's arbitration agreements with some class members is
unavailing, and accordingly she concludes that the amount in
controversy requirement is satisfied.

Finally, the Court has discretion to grant jurisdictional discovery
to assist it in determining whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction.  Any decision regarding jurisdictional discovery is a
discretionary one, and is governed by existing principles regarding
post-removal jurisdictional discovery, including the disinclination
to entertain substantial, burdensome discovery on jurisdictional
issues.  In the case, the Judge finds that neither party has
requested an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and
she in her discretion declines to order such discovery sua sponte.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge van Keulen denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bt2hsv8y from Leagle.com.


HOLLYWOOD BED: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, Melgar Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REGORIO A. MELGAR, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. HOLLYWOOD BED & SPRING MFG. CO., INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV06311 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles, Feb. 17, 2021) is an
enforcement action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004, California Labor Code (PAGA) to recover civil
penalties and any other available relief on behalf of the
Plaintiff, the State of California, and former and current
non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
failed to compensate all hours worked, failed to provide compliant
meal breaks, failed to provide compliant rest breaks, and failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Hollywood Bed manufactures metal household furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.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

HONDA MOTOR: Class Action Over Defective CR-V Windshields Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Honda
CR-V class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the plaintiff
accused the automaker of selling SUVs with defective windshields
that spontaneously crack.

According to the 2017-2019 Honda CR-V lawsuit, the windshields can
even shatter, and all without any external objects hitting the
glass.

Illinois plaintiff Hakeem Hasan filed the lawsuit claiming he
parked his new 2018 Honda CR-V in a parking lot and found a large
crack in the glass the next morning.

A Honda dealership performed tests and allegedly determined the
windshield crack wasn't caused by anything hitting the glass.
Allegedly the warranty administrator said the crack looked like it
was caused by stress due to defective materials or construction.

However, the Honda dealer service manager allegedly wouldn't even
look at the cracked windshield and Honda refused to pay for repairs
even though the CR-V had less than 5,000 miles on it.

The CR-V class action lawsuit says the plaintiff took his SUV to an
auto glass repair company which also allegedly found the crack
didn't come from an impact.

The repair shop said the evidence was "indicating a common vehicle
frame issue which exerts excessive pressure on the windshield's
edges, causing stress cracks." The Honda dealership was allegedly
notified about the finding but still refused to pay for the
windshield.

The CR-V class action alleges one of the big problems with a
cracked windshield is how it affects the Honda Sensing feature
which uses sensors, cameras and radar to make driving safer.
According to the CR-V class action lawsuit, a busted windshield can
cause serious problems with the Sensing system.

"[S]cratches, nicks, and other damage to the windshield within the
camera's field of vision can cause the system to operate
abnormally. If this occurs, we recommend that you replace the
windshield with a genuine Honda replacement windshield." - Honda
CR-V owner's manual

The Honda CR-V class action lawsuit was dismissed after the
plaintiff and Honda agreed to settle the case on an individual
basis.

"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Hakeem Hasan and
Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc., through their undersigned
counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that this
action is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff's individual
claims, with each Party to bear his or its own costs. This action
is dismissed without prejudice as to the claims of the members of
the putative class other than Plaintiff."

The Honda CR-V class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division -
Hasan, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by McGuire Law. [GN]


HORNELL BREWING: Thur Sues Over False "All Natural" Product Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Thur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., Arizona Beverages USA LLC,
Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. and Arizona Beverage Co., Case No.
2:21-cv-01200 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021), seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendants with
respect to the marketing and sales of the Arizona All Natural Fruit
Snacks product ("Product") throughout the State of New York and
throughout the country, in violation of the New York General
Business Law, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, sell, and
distribute the Product using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers,
i.e., that their Product is "All Natural;" however, the Defendants'
advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and
misleading because the Product contains synthetic, non-natural
ingredients, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' misrepresentations that the
Product is "All Natural" when purchasing the Product. The Plaintiff
paid a premium for the Product over and above comparable products
that did not purport to be "All Natural." Given that the Plaintiff
paid a premium for the Product based on the Defendants'
misrepresentations that they are "All Natural," the Plaintiff
suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. Had the
Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive
representation that the Product was "All Natural," the Plaintiff
would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the Product,
and, consequently, she would not have been willing to purchase the
Product, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the product during the Class Period.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Product throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUNT & HENRIQUES: $126K Sanction Against Attorneys in Smith Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUSSELL SMITH, Plaintiff v. HUNT & HENRIQUES,
Defendant and Respondent; ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN et al., Objectors and
Appellants, Case No. D076278 (Cal. App.), a three-judge panel of
the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District,
Division One, reversed in part the trial court's order imposing
$125,690 in sanctions against the Attorneys under Code of Civil
Procedure Section 128.5.

Attorneys Abbas Kazerounian, Matthew Loker, Joshua Swigart, and
Daniel Shay, appeal from an order imposing $125,690.56 in sanctions
against them under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 128.5 for
prosecuting litigation the superior court found to be frivolous and
in bad faith.

H&H is a law firm representing clients seeking to recover
delinquent consumer debt.  In August 2016, H&H wrote to Russell
Smith stating that Capital One Bank (USA) had engaged the firm to
collect $2,871.45 on his account.  The Letter informs Smith he may
dispute the debt "by mailing a notice" to H&H within 30 days.

About three weeks later, Smith filed a limited civil action against
Capital One, Smith v. Capital One Services, LLC (Super. Ct. San
Diego County, 2016, No. 37-2016-00030378-CL-MC-CTL).  Smith alleged
that Capital One violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (Civ. Code, Section 1788 et seq.) and other laws by
repeatedly contacting him about his accounts despite knowing he was
represented by counsel.  In the Cap One action Smith was
represented by Abbas Kazerounian (Kazerouni Law Group), Daniel G.
Shay (Law Office of Daniel G. Shay), and Joshua Swigart (Hyde &
Swigart).  Capital One was represented by Doll, Amir & Eley, LLP --
not by H&H.

In December 2016, Smith settled the Cap One action.  Capital One
paid Smith $6,000 and waived amounts due on his accounts.
Kazerounian signed the settlement agreement as Smith's attorney,
agreeing to "form and confidentiality."

In January 2017, Smith filed a putative class action against H&H
entitled Smith v. Hunt & Henriques, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Diego
County, 2017, No. 37-2017-00001062-CU-NP-CTL).  Represented by the
same lawyers who had represented him in the Cap One action (plus
Matthew Locker of the Kazerounian firm), Smith alleged that the
Letter unlawfully limited his ability to dispute the debt by "mail
only."  Smith filed the action individually and on behalf of a
class generally defined as those to whom H&H had sent such demand
letters within one year prior to filing the action.

Apparently H&H's involvement with Smith was limited to sending the
Letter.  As a result, H&H and its defense counsel were unaware of
the Cap One action.  Moreover, Smith deflected H&H's attempts to
elicit such information in discovery.

While preparing for Smith's deposition in September 2018, H&H's
lawyers learned of the Cap One action, and that the same firms
representing Smith there also represented him in the Class action.
In October 2018, counsel for H&H issued a subpoena to Capital One
to produce certain documents, including the Agreement.  Capital One
objected on the grounds that the Agreement was confidential, and
also asserted several "general objections" -- including
attorney-client privilege.  After Smith's lawyers refused to
stipulate to a protective order, the court entered a protective
order and Capital One produced the Agreement.

In January 2019, Attorneys filed a request for dismissal without
prejudice of the Class action.  In an accompanying declaration, the
counsel stated the action was being dismissed because the court had
denied a motion to compel H&H to produce financial records, and as
a result, "the superiority element will be unmet."  However, the
clerk declined to enter the dismissal without a court order.  Later
the same month, Smith filed a bankruptcy petition.  His asset
schedules include the Class action; however, Smith stated he wishes
to dismiss the class case via a 'mutual walkaway.'

In February 2019, H&H served Attorneys with an unfiled motion
seeking $112,653.50 in sanctions against Attorneys (but not against
Smith).  Purporting to comply with section 128.5's safe harbor
provisions, H&H indicated the motion for sanctions would be filed
unless Smith dismissed the Class action and paid $112,635.50 as
H&H's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending the Class
action.

After the Attorneys failed to pay the $112,653.50, H&H filed the
sanctions motion.  The thrust of the motion was that Smith had
released H&H, as Capital One's attorneys.  Because the same law
firms who filed the Class action also represented Smith in the Cap
One action, H&H asserted that the Attorneys "had to know that this
case was legally unfounded from the start."  H&H further asserted
that the Attorneys acted in bad faith -- evidenced by their attempt
to conceal the Release by evasive discovery responses.

After conducting a hearing, the court granted H&H's sanctions
motion in a minute order that was later attached to a separate
written order.  It awarded H&H the entire amount sought
($112,653.50) plus additional amounts H&H incurred after filing the
motion, for a total award of $125,690.56.  In July 2019, Smith
appealed from the order imposing sanctions.  In September 2019, the
court ordered the action dismissed without prejudice.

On appeal, the Attorneys contend: (1) the finding that the action
was frivolous is not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the
superior court applied an incorrect legal standard of bad faith;
(3) the moving party, Hunt & Henriques ("H&H"), failed to comply
with safe harbor provisions in section 128.5, subdivision
(f)(1)(B); (4) sanctions are improper because Attorneys sought to
dismiss and later to amend the complaint; (5) the order lacks
required specificity; and (6) the sanctions "violate California
public policy."

The Court of Appeals holds that two factual determinations are the
foundation for the court's conclusion that every reasonable
attorney would have agreed Smith's claims were frivolous.  The
first is that Smith had already released the claims asserted.  The
second is that every reasonable attorney would agree that Smith had
released those claims.  The evidence on these points is deceptively
straightforward: (i) the Agreement releases Smith's claims against
Capital One's attorneys, and (ii) Capital One engaged H&H as
attorneys to send Smith the Letter.

The problem, however, is that H&H is not a party to the Release.
In addition to being a nonparty to the Release, H&H is not
identified by name in the Agreement, is not referred to anywhere as
an intended third-party beneficiary of the Agreement, and did not
represent Capital One in the litigation giving rise to the
Agreement.

The issue in the sanctions motion, therefore, is not whether
Capital One engaged H&H as attorneys to send Smith the Letter.
Rather, the issue is one of contract interpretation.  The Class
action was frivolous under section 128.5 only if every reasonable
lawyer would know that "attorneys" -- as that term appears in the
Release -- was intended to include H&H as a third-party
beneficiary.

The Court of Appeals holds that a reasonable attorney could assert
that Smith did not release H&H under the Agreement.  That argument
may perhaps lack merit and may even be extremely unlikely to
prevail.  However, "'sanctions should be used sparingly in the
clearest of cases to deter the most egregious conduct'" and "'an
action that is simply without merit'" or is "'extremely unlikely to
prevail, should not incur sanctions.'"  Therefore, the order
imposing sanctions must be reversed with directions to deny the
motion.  In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to
consider Attorneys' other contentions about the sanctions order.

In addition to challenging the order imposing sanctions, the
Attorneys also contend the court erroneously denied their motion
seeking sanctions against H&H for filing the sanctions motion.
However, the Appellate Court explains that an order denying a
motion for section 128.5 sanctions is not an appealable order, nor
is it cognizable on appeal from an order granting sanctions in the
same case.  The Attorneys' remedy was to promptly file a petition
for a writ of mandate and move to consolidate that petition with
the appeal, or alternatively raise the issue in a timely appeal
from the later judgment of dismissal.  The appealability of the
judgment or order is jurisdictional and an attempt to appeal from a
nonappealable judgment or order will ordinarily be dismissed."
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Attorneys' appeal to the
extent it is taken from the order denying sanctions for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.

In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals reversed the order
imposing sanctions with directions to enter a new order denying the
motion.  It dismissed the Attorneys' appeal from the order denying
sanctions.  In the interest of justice, the parties to bear their
own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kxs6xrsu from Leagle.com.

Kazerouni Law Group, Robert L. Hyde -- info@kazlg.com -- and Mike
Kazerouni -- mike@kazlg.com -- for Objectors and Appellants.

Simmonds & Narita, Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com -- and
Jeffrey A. Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.

No appearance for Plaintiff.


HY-VEE INC: July 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by the law firms of
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP and Barnow and
Associates, P.C. regarding the Hy-Vee class action settlement.

A Settlement has been reached with Hy-Vee, Inc. ("Hy-Vee") in a
class action lawsuit about a data Security Incident that occurred
between December 14, 2018 and August 2, 2019, and which exposed
payment card data of customers. The lawsuit claims Hy-Vee was
responsible for the Security Incident because Hy-Vee did not take
appropriate care to protect its payment card systems from hacking.
Hy-Vee denies the claims and denies any wrongdoing.

The Security Incident targeted data on credit, debit, and other
payment cards used at certain Hy-Vee fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee
shops, and restaurants, including Hy-Vee Market Grille Expresses,
the Wahlburgers locations owned and operated by Hy-Vee, and the
cafeteria at Hy Vee's West Des Moines corporate office. A list of
dates data was at risk based on location is available at
www.GrocerySecurityIncidentSettlement.com.

Who Is Included?
You are included in the Settlement if you made a purchase using a
credit, debit, or other payment card at a Hy-Vee fuel pump,
drive-thru coffee shop, or restaurant while payment card data at
the location was at risk. The time frame of the incident is
generally from December 14, 2018 through August 2, 2019, although
the specific dates during which data was at risk vary on a
location-by-location basis.

What Can I Get?
The Settlement will reimburse people who submit claims for:

(1) Out-of-pocket expenses: Reimbursement of up to $225 for
out-of-pocket expenses and documented lost time that resulted from
the Security Incident. This provides reimbursement for 14 types of
out-of-pocket expenses and lost time (unreimbursed bank fees, card
reissuance fees, overdraft fees, etc.). The Detailed Notice has the
complete list.

(2) Credit/debit card charges: Get $20 for each credit or debit
card that had fraudulent charges as a result of the Security
Incident, even if charges were reversed or credited back to your
account.

(3) Extraordinary expenses: Reimbursement of up to $5,000 for
extraordinary unreimbursed monetary losses which were more likely
than not caused by the Security Incident.

Hy-Vee has also committed to establish and maintain security
enhancements that are estimated to cost more than $20 million.

How to Ask for a Payment?
You must file a Claim Form by June 22, 2021, to get any money from
the Settlement. Claims forms are available at
www.GrocerySecurityIncidentSettlement.com or by calling
1-833-644-1595.

If You Do Nothing. You will be legally bound by decisions of the
Court and you give up the right to sue Hy-Vee for the claims in
this case.

Exclude Yourself. If you exclude yourself, you are not be legally
bound by the Settlement and you keep your right to sue. However,
you will not get any money. You must submit your exclusion by May
24, 2021.

Object. You can stay in the Settlement and tell the Court why you
do not like the Settlement. Objections must be submitted by May 24,
2021. Detailed instructions on how to exclude yourself or object to
the Settlement are found in the long notice on the website or by
calling 1-833-644-1595.

When Will the Court Approve the Settlement?
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on July 19, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. at the United States District Court for the Central District
of Illinois located at U.S. Courthouse, 100 N.E. Monroe Street,
Peoria, IL 61602, to consider whether to approve the settlement.
The Court will hear objections, determine if the Settlement is
fair, and consider Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses of $739,000 and an incentive award of $2,000
for each of the Representative Plaintiffs. You or your own lawyer
may ask to appear at the hearing to be heard by the Court, but you
do not have to. The Motion for attorneys' fees and costs will be
posted on the website after it is filed with the Court.

This is only a summary. For detailed information visit
www.GrocerySecurityIncidentSettlement.com or call 1-833-644-1595.
[GN]


IMMUNOVANT INC: Faces Pitman Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA PITMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IMMUNOVANT, INC. f/k/a HEALTH SCIENCES ACQUISITIONS
CORPORATION, PETER SALZMANN, PAMELA YANCHIK CONNEALY, and RODERICK
WONG, Case No. 1:21-cv-00918 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Immunovant securities between October 2, 2019
and February 1, 2021, both dates inclusive (the Class Period),
seeking to recover damages caused by the 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 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

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

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

On this news, Immunovant's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or
42.08%, to close at $25.08 per share on February 2, 2021. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff acquired Immunovant securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Immunovant is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of autoimmune
diseases. The Company is developing IMVT-1401, a novel fully human
monoclonal antibody, which is in Phase IIa clinical trials for the
treatment of MG and TED, also known as Graves' ophthalmopathy. The
Company has also completed initiation of Phase II clinical trials
of IMVT-1401 for the treatment of WAIHA. The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

IMMUNOVANT INC: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of Immunovant, Inc. f/k/a Health
Sciences Acquisitions Corporation ( IMVT, HSACU, HSAC, HSACW)
between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Immunovant, Inc.
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Health Sciences
Acquisitions Corporation had performed inadequate due diligence
into Immunovant Sciences Ltd. prior to the merger, and/or ignored
or failed to disclose safety issues with IMVT-1401; IMVT-1401 was
less safe than the Company had led investors to believe,
particularly with respect to treating thyroid eye disease (TED) and
warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (WAIHA); the foregoing foreseeably
diminished IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval,
commercial viability, and profitability; and as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

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

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

Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


INTUIT INC: Federal Judge Rejects $40M Settlement, Calls It Unfair
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton at courthousenews.com reports that a federal judge said
he rejected a proposed $40 million class action settlement against
financial software company Intuit because it "is not fair,
reasonable, and adequate" for those taxpayers who were allegedly
misled into paying for tax preparation services rather than the
company's free services.

Intuit faced a class action from customers who used the company's
online tax preparation software TurboTax. In a deal with the IRS,
the company agreed to offer the services for free for low-income
taxpayers and active military.

But the plaintiffs allege the company duped eligible taxpayers into
using its paid services instead, paying about $100 a year between
2015 to 2020.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of
California denied preliminary approval of the settlement on Dec. 17
last year, but held off on issuing an opinion at the request of the
parties to reach a new settlement deal.

Since both sides have been unable to agree upon a deal to date,
Breyer released his opinion, calling the proposed settlement unfair
to consumers.

"In particular, the proposed settlement provides class members with
inadequate compensation and sets forth opt out procedures that
unduly burden all class members, but especially those who have
already begun to pursue claims through arbitration," he wrote in a
20-page opinion.

The company made a motion in 2019 to compel arbitration, a motion
Breyer denied due to Intuit's online contract failing to give
adequate notice to users. Intuit appealed the decision and the
Ninth Circuit reversed it last August.

Since then, more than 100,000 customers have filed individual
arbitration requests, costing the company tens of millions of
dollars. Under the settlement, customers would only receive an
average of $28.

As part of the proposed settlement, customers would not be able to
go forward with their arbitration requests unless they opted out of
the settlement.

Judge Breyer said opinion that he found that to be unacceptable.

"In particular, the proposed settlement provides class members with
inadequate compensation and sets forth opt out procedures that
unduly burden all class members, but especially those who have
already begun to pursue claims through arbitration," he wrote.

At the Dec. 17 hearing, Judge Breyer offered Intuit attorney Rodger
Cole of Fenwick & West no sympathy for the company, which has had
to pay millions in arbitration costs and unsuccessfully sued
arbitration claimants in California, asking the state court to move
such claims to small claims court.

"You knew what the rules of arbitration were. You knew all these
things. And you elected, you elected to go to arbitration," Breyer
said. "And you fought fairly, vigorously, and it turns out
correctly, that you had this right to insist on arbitration. Now
you come in, when you see how it is unfolding, and say, ‘Not so
fast. Now we want to turn and do something else.'"

Judge Breyer also emphasized how little customers would have
received under the settlement terms.

"It also bears emphasizing that here, that harm is significant.
Mostly low-income class members suffered at least $100 in damages,"
he wrote. "For class members who paid filing fees over multiple
years, the harm was much more. And for a family or individual with
limited disposable income, $100-per-year can have a material
effect. It might be the difference in whether someone can pay rent
for a month or buy groceries for a week."[GN]

JAVITCH BLOCK: Redman Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jerome Redman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Javitch Block, LLC, Case No.
CC-02-02021-C-11 was removed from the Circuit Court of Berkeley
County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of West Virginia on March 5, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00037-GMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Javitch Block LLC -- http://www.jbllc.com/-- is a law firm
concentrating in the area of creditor representation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Levi Brennan Pellegrin, Esq.
          Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
          SKINNER LAW FIRM
          PO Box 487
          Charles Town, WV 25414
          Phone: (304) 725-7029
          Fax: (304) 725-4082
          Email: pellegrin@skinnerfirm.com
                 sskinner@skinnerfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler G. Lansden, Esq.
          JAVITCH BLOCK LLC
          1100 Superior Avenue, 19th Fl.
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 408-6729
          Fax: (216) 623-0190
          Email: tlansden@jbllc.com


JETRO HOLDINGS: Jean-Pierre Seeks Reimbursement for Uniform Upkeep
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yonelika Jean-Pierre, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JETRO HOLDINGS, LLC, and RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, Case
No. 505371/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 5, 2021), is
brought for damages and other legal and equitable relief against
the Defendants for violations of the New York State Labor Law, the
New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff's schedule throughout the duration of her employment
with the Defendant varied but was typically multiple days per week.
At her time of hire, the Plaintiff was provided with a uniform. The
uniform consisted of a shirt emblazoned with the Defendants' logo.
The Plaintiff was required by the Defendants to wear this uniform
every shift. The Plaintiff did, in fact, wear the uniform every
shift. However, the Defendants did not launder the Plaintiff's
required uniforms, nor did the Defendants offer to launder the
required uniforms. The Plaintiff's uniform was issued by the
Defendants for the express benefit of the Defendants and it was a
condition of the Plaintiff's employment to wear it in a clean
condition during each shift. The Defendants permitted no variation
in the uniform. The Defendants never paid any uniform maintenance
pay to the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff spent time off-the clock
and money to clean and maintain her uniform consistent with the
uniform appearance standards the Defendants required. Thus, the
Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement or additional pay for time
spent off the clock and money spent in laundering and maintaining
the Defendants' uniform.

The Plaintiff was throughout her entire employment with the
Defendants, a covered, non-exempt employee within the meaning of
the NYLL.

The Defendants own and operate wholesale warehouse locations
throughout New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Phone: (516) 742-4949
          Email: mark@bglawny.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens-Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that Johnson & Johnson Vision
Care, Inc. (JJVCI) continues to defend putative class action suits
related to price fixing of retail prices of contact lenses.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.


The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
November 2015.

Discovery and pre-trial motion practice are complete.

No trial date has been set.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend ELMIRON(R) Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that the company continues to
defend itself from class action suits related to ELMIRON(R).

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of ELMIRON(R), a
prescription medication indicated for the relief of bladder pain or
discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.

These lawsuits, which allege that ELMIRON(R) contributes to the
development of permanent retinal injury and vision loss, have been
filed in both state and federal courts across the United States.

In December 2020, the federal cases, including two putative class
action cases seeking medical monitoring, were organized as a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

In addition, three class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.


Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases.

The Company has established accruals for defense costs associated
with ELMIRON(R) related product liability litigation.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to sales of INVOKANA(R)
medication.

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R),
a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.

In December 2016, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United
States were organized as a multi-district litigation in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have
also been filed in state courts.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.

Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases.

The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and
claims in the United States and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
securities class action against the company in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that
purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result. Plaintiff is seeking damages.

In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019.

In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss.


In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint. Discovery is
underway.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

JOSHUA J. ENTERPRISE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Sinclair Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE SINCLAIR, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Individuals v. JOSHUA J. ENTERPRISE, INC. DIB/A ANGELS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Case No. 1:21-cv-00159 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 18,
2021) alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff  and
all other members of the class and collective as "independent
contractors" at all times they worked as exotic dancers at
Defendant's Kalamazoo, Michigan based strip club doing business as
Angels Gentlemen's Club.

The class and collective is composed of female employees who,
during the relevant period of February 2018 through the date of
judgment in this case worked as exotic dancers for Defendant and
were denied their fundamental rights under applicable state and
federal laws.

As a result, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and
all other members of the class and collective minimum wage
compensation they were entitled to under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: 301-587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Conklin, Esq.
          CONYBEARE LAW OFFICE
          519 Main Street
          St. Joseph, MH 49085

KAGAN LUBIC: Faces Hancock FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE HANCOCK on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KAGAN LUBIC LEPPER FINKELSTEIN & GOLD, LLP; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-01547-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) is
class action suit for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
herself and all consumers and their successors in interest (class),
who were sent debt collection letters and/or notices from HF which
are in violation of the FDCPA.

On November 30, 2020, the Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation
to ELLE Wordworking, Inc. (ELLE). The ELLE obligation arose out of
a transaction in which money, property, insurance or services,
which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The ELLE obligation arose
out of a transaction, which was for non-business purposes.

On November 30, 2020, KLLFG caused to be mailed to Hancock a letter
concerning the ELLE obligation. The letter does not contain the
proper notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(3). KLLFG could have
taken the steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance
with the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately
review its actions to ensure compliance with the law, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York County.

KLLFG is a law firm with offices located at 200 Madison Avenue,
24th Floor, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 101065
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the parties in the class
action related to packaging statements in the company's products
are continuing arbitration.

In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products.

In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding
certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the
parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in
dispute.

In October 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to
approve a settlement between Kellogg and the class. During 2019,
the Company concluded that the contingency related to the
unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a
liability being recorded.

In February 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to approve
the settlement and the parties are continuing arbitration.

Kellogg said, "This litigation, including any potential settlement,
is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements. The Company will continue to
evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes as the litigation
continues."

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

Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.

LA CROSSE, WI: Lawsuit Filed Against Forever Chemical Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crueger Dickinson and Napoli Shkolnik together filed a lawsuit on
behalf of the City of La Crosse against nearly two dozen chemical
companies whose products the city alleges caused groundwater well
contamination in La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Crueger Dickinson is a leading Milwaukee-based law firm focused on
high-stakes litigation around the country, including national class
action and mass tort litigation, and Napoli Shkolnik is one of the
nation's largest law firms focused on environmental litigation and
mass tort actions.

The complaint was filed against eight manufacturers of aqueous
firefighting foams (AFFF) containing perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), specifically perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and 15
manufacturers of fluorosurfactants containing PFOS and PFOA. The
lawsuit is one of thousands that have been filed nationwide by
municipalities, residents and firefighters, including over one
hundred cases filed by government entities.

Tyco Fire Products of Marinette, formerly Ansul and now Johnson
Controls Inc., is a defendant.

"Defendants were aware since the 1960s and 1970s that PFOA and PFOS
were toxic, do not biodegrade, are persistent in the environment,
move easily through soil and groundwater, and pose a significant
risk to human health and health and safety; yet Defendants elected
to manufacture and sell products utilizing these chemicals without
warning their customers, placing profits over public health and
safety," the complaint notes.

The complaint, filed in the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court for La
Crosse County, alleges that municipal governments, including the
City of La Crosse, used AFFF products for decades unaware of the
serious and deadly effects of the PFOA and PFOS chemicals they
contain, and those chemicals' ability, once released during routine
use, to contaminate their community's water supply.

"Our city and residents have been severely impacted by these
chemical manufacturers hiding the dangers of using their AFFF
Products. From the time we detected PFAS contamination at our
airport, we have worked to identify the extent and causes and, most
importantly, protect the health and safety of community residents
from that contamination," said La Crosse Mayor Tim Kabat. "We aim
to hold the polluters responsible for the contamination they caused
and require the polluters -- not the City or residents -- to pay to
clean it up."

"This lawsuit represents the city's continued leadership to address
a serious public health issue," said Crueger Dickinson's Erin
Dickinson, lead co-counsel for the city in this case. "With this
lawsuit, the city joins over 100 government entities around the
United States to hold defendants responsible for their actions in
contaminating the water we drink."

Unaware of the dangers the chemicals contained in defendants'
firefighting foam products, the city used these products at the La
Crosse Regional Airport for routine firefighting training and to
extinguish active fires and was required by the FAA to test these
products annually. The city alleges PFOA and PFOS caused
groundwater contamination both in municipal wells and private wells
south of the airport.

To date, the cCity has tested more than 100 private drinking water
wells at more than 100 properties near the airport. Of these
samples, two municipal wells and 40 private wells were found to be
above the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' proposed
standards. The city responded immediately by taking its municipal
wells offline and providing bottled water to affected residents.

Neither Wisconsin nor the federal government have yet to finalize
PFAS contamination standards. Regardless, the city alleges this
danger must be cleaned up and seeks compensatory damages for the
costs associated to investigate, remediate and monitor the
contamination.

The defendants have been sued in hundreds of cases nationwide. Tyco
Fire Products, Chemguard and ChemDesign Products, all located in
Marinette, recently announced a $17.5 million settlement with a
class of residents over contamination allegedly resulting from
firefighting foam products the companies manufacture.

Previous lawsuits over PFAS contamination have resulted in large
settlements by chemical companies, most notably a lawsuit by the
State of Minnesota against 3M resolved in 2018 for $850 million and
a lawsuit against Dupont in West Virginia resolved in 2017 for $671
million and was the subject of the movie "Dark Waters." [GN]

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Romero Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL C. ROMERO, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC,
AND CENTRAL LOAN ADMINISTRATION & REPORTING d/b/a CENLAR FSB, Case
No. 2:21-cv-14094-AMC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 18, 2021) arises under the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act involving repeated violations of the
statutes by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is the subject of a foreclosure action brought by
Lakeview where the loan servicer Cenlar.

Lakeview is the fourth largest loan servicer in the United States
with more than 1.4 million customers. Lakeview partners with
various other loan servicers including Cenlar. Cenlar is one of the
country’s leading mortgage sub-servicing companies. It has been
actively engaged in mortgage loan servicing and subservicing for
over forty years. Its total assets are over $1 billion.

A foreclosure action was initiated against in the Circuit Court of
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County, Florida by Lakeview
against Plaintiff on November 27, 2019 in connection with the
Plaintiff's Loan Number ending in 1786.

On May 5, 2020, the Plaintiff through his attorneys who were
representing Plaintiff in the foreclosure action, sent a cease
contact letter to Lakeview.

The Plaintiff contends that Lakeview had a duty to convey this
direction to loan servicer Cenlar. Lakeview was responsible for the
actions of its agent and loan servicer. Cenlar received actual
notice of the legal representation of Plaintiff, and his direction
that it cease to contact him directly. This is evidenced by the
fact that Cenlar's loan statement of June 1, 2020 was sent to
Plaintiff's lawyer instead of to Plaintiff.

Unfortunately, the same was not true for the pre-recorded debt
collection calls of Cenlar. Notwithstanding the clear direction of
the May 5, 2020 letter, Cenlar proceeded to call and harass the
Plaintiff thereafter with repeated pre-recorded calls to his cell
phone. There have been at least five such calls and they are
continuing, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased property by obtaining a mortgage on August
20, 2018 and signing a Note on August 20, 2018. Subsequently, the
Defendant Cenlar obtained servicing of the loan. The Plaintiff
defaulted on mortgage and note obligations by failing to make the
payment due on May 1, 2019.

The Defendant's telephone calls were made to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 5699 using an artificial or pre-recorded
voice. The Plaintiff is the owner, regular user, and possessor of a
Cellular Telephone with the assigned number ending in 5699. At no
time herein did the Defendant Cenlar possess Plaintiff’s prior
express consent to call his Cellular Telephone using an APV, the
Plaintiff says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young Kim, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEYS
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 270
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (877) 241-2200
          E-mail: litigation@consumerlawattorneys.com
                  ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com

               - and -

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ, P.L.L.C.
          1014 Ontario Street
          Oak Park, IL 60302
          Telephone: (708) -203-5747
          E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Leidos Holdings,
Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23,
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 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 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.

The complaint, filed on March 4, 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
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 Leidos 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

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.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210305005556/en/

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]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) investors to
submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been
filed and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: May 4, 2020 – Feb. 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/LDOS
Contact An Attorney Now: LDOS@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint centers on the accuracy of defendants' statements
about Leidos' SD&A business, which the company acquired from
L3Harris Technologies in May 2020 for $1 billion and touted as
having compelling strategic and operational benefits.

Specifically, defendants materially overstated the benefits of the
acquisition and did not disclose that Leidos' products suffered
from numerous product defects that included faulty explosive
detection systems at airports, ports and borders. As a result, the
company's financial results were significantly overstated.

The truth emerged through a series of partial disclosures beginning
on Feb. 16, 2021 when analyst Spruce Point published a scathing
report concluding that Leidos had "wasted" $1b on the SD&A
acquisition. Spruce Point stated, "We believe Leidos is potentially
covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing
$355 - $367m of international revenue." Spruce Point also alleged
that the company is "concealing numerous product defects from
investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports
and borders." Spruce Point further avers that management may be
intentionally inflating certain of Leidos' financial metrics,
including operating cash flow and organic sales growth, to obscure
strains from investors.

Then, on Feb. 23, 2021, Leidos released mixed Q4 2020 financial
results and disappointing 2021 outlook, including guided revenue
and EPS well below analyst consensus. The same day, Spruce Point
highlighted the poor 2021 outlook and picked up on a SD&A
accounting discrepancy, tweeting "[t]his asset is a total black
box."

Finally, on Feb. 24, 2021 Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos
"materially expanded" its risk disclosures in its 2020 annual
report, tweeting "[w]e believe it is validating all the major
points of our report."

On these disclosures, the price of Leidos shares sharply declined.

"We're focused on investor losses and proving Leidos misled
investors about its SD&A business," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Leidos investor, click here to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Leidos should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
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 Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email LDOS@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Leidos
Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) securities
between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Leidos investors have until May 3, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Leidos 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 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.

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 Leidos 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]

MEDIATION RECOVERY: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediation Recovery
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Rachael Bell, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mediation Recovery
Center, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01193 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Mediation Recovery Center --
http://www.mediationrecoverycenter.com/-- is a consumer management
company located in the heart of DeKalb County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDNAX INC: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Nielsen Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Nielsen, Gerald Lee, and Chaya Clark, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDNAX, Inc., MEDNAX
Services, Inc., Pediatrix Medical Group, and American
Anesthesiology, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00500-JD (D.S.C., Feb. 17,
2021) seeks to hold the Defendants responsible for the harms they
caused them and the nearly 1.3 million similarly situated persons
in the massive and preventable data breach that took place between
June 17, 2020 and June 22, 2020 by which cyber criminals, through a
phishing event, infiltrated the Defendants' inadequately protected
Microsoft Office 365-hosted business email accounts where sensitive
personal information was being kept unprotected (Data Breach).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have also revealed that
unauthorized third-parties accessed their business email accounts
between October 20, 2019 to April 16, 2020, and October 13, 2015 to
March 13, 2020, and that Defendants experienced a separate data
breach during the dates of July 2-3 of 2020. During the Data Breach
period of June 17, 2020 through June 22, 2020, the cyber criminals
gained access to certain of the Defendants' Microsoft Office 365
business email accounts with the apparent intention of stealing
protected personal information and protected health information of
over a million individuals whose information was stored within one
or more of these business email accounts, the suit adds.

Plaintiff Nielsen is a citizen and resident of the state of
Virginia. She was a patient of AA in 2013 and 2016 for the births
of her two children. At the time of her first child's birth, she
was very recently married, and it is likely that, due to the short
turnaround of events, her maiden name was being used by AA on her
medical records in AA's care. Importantly, the Notice of Data
Breach letter sent to Plaintiff Nielsen was sent to her parents'
address, not her current home address. In October 2020, months
after the Data Breach occurred but before the Defendants had
notified Plaintiff of the Data Breach, she discovered that a total
of 12 Charles Schwab bank accounts six high yield brokerage
accounts and six checking accounts had been opened in her maiden
name with her parents' address as the account owner's listed
address.

Plaintiff Lee is a citizen and resident of the state of South
Carolina. Lee received the same or a similar Notice letter as the
one Plaintiff Nielsen received in January 2021.

Plaintiff Clark and her minor child are citizens and residents of
the state of South Carolina. Ms. Clark received a letter dated
December 16, 2020 from the Defendants informing her that her minor
children’s name, address, date of birth, health insurance
information (including payor name, payor contract dates, policy
information including type and deductible amount and
subscriber/Medicare/Medicaid number), medical and/or treatment
information (including dates of service, location, services
requested or procedures performed, diagnosis, prescription
information, physician names and Medical Record Numbers), and
billing and claims information were compromised in the Data
Breach.

MEDNAX is a physician-led healthcare organization that partners
with hospitals, health systems and healthcare facilities to offer
clinical services spanning the continuum of care, as well as
revenue cycle management, patient engagement and perioperative
improvement consulting solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Dalzell, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Berger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH BERGER, LLC
          5205 Forest Drive, Suite 2
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 790-2800
          E-mail: kberger@bergerlawsc.com
                  edalzell@bergerlawsc.com

MISSISSIPPI: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Alexander Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. PELICIA E.
HALL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-21-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.),
Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, granted in part,
denied in part, and denied as moot in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs, 14 current or former prisoners at
the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against
several individuals associated with the Mississippi Department of
Corrections ("MDOC") and Parchman.  The SAC alleges 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claims that due to Mississippi's failure to properly
fund, staff, and maintain its prisons and the Defendants'
individual personal actions and non-actions, the Plaintiffs are
currently being confined in conditions which pose serious and
imminent dangers to their safety and well-being, in violation of
their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 12, 2020.  The
Plaintiffs filed their initial response on July 16, 2020.

Following a notice by the Clerk that the filing did not comply with
the Local Rules, the Plaintiffs refiled the response and supporting
memorandum on July 20, 2020.  However, because the refiled response
and accompanying memorandum also violated the Local Rules, the
Court struck the documents on Dec. 14, 2020, and allowed the
Plaintiffs seven days to again refile their response and
memorandum.  The Plaintiffs failed to do so within the time
allowed.

The prison civil rights case is before the Court on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Defendants argue the SAC should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs "failed to establish Article III
standing, failed to state a claim under Section 1983, failed to
make sufficient allegations to overcome qualified immunity, and
failed to allege a physical injury as required by the Prion
Litigation Reform Act.

Because Article III challenges implicate the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction, Judge Brown addresses the standing argument first.

Beyond their standing challenge, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1983 and
have failed to plead allegations to defeat a defense of qualified
immunity.  While the Defendants raise numerous arguments on the
merits (including qualified immunity), the Court need only address
one -- that the SAC is subject to dismissal as a shotgun pleading.

Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiffs' SAC commits the "mortal sin"
of incorporating each allegation into each of its two counts.  As a
practical matter, this means each count includes approximately 80
allegations spanning approximately 30 pages.  This wholesale
incorporation of extraneous allegations is particularly troublesome
because neither of the two counts make any effort to identify which
acts of the Defendants underlie each claim.

Given these pleading deficiencies, to analyze the merits of the
Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge would need to sift through the 30
pages of allegations to determine which factual allegations support
which claims, a "quite onerous" task made even more so by the fact
that the Plaintiffs did not file a timely response to the motion to
dismiss.  Because she declines to undertake this herculean effort,
the Judge will dismiss the SAC and allow the Plaintiffs the
opportunity to remedy their pleading deficiencies.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Brown granted in part, denied in
part, and denied as moot in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
She denied the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.  She granted the motion to the
extent it seeks dismissal of the second amended complaint as a
shotgun pleading.  The Judge denied as moot the motion in all other
respects.  The SAC is dismissed without prejudice.

Within 14 days of the entry of the Order, the Plaintiffs may file
another amended complaint to address the pleading deficiencies.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6hxk6y5 from Leagle.com.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against a putative securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in
October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement that
MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Justice
in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."

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

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.

MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure to Hazardous Substances Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc. continues to
defend a putative class action "Cruz Litigation".

On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough
County, Florida against the company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
Mosaic Global Operations Inc. and two co-defendants.

The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, due to
phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago.


Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.

Mosaic said, "We will vigorously defend this matter."

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the examination in the
Uberaba EHS class action is pending and the parties are negotiating
a settlement.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that the company's predecessor company in Brazil
did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that the company complied
with these labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by
the inspectors in 2010 was abusive.

Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations. The examination is currently pending and the parties
are negotiating a settlement. The amount claimed in the proceeding
is $29 million.

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.

MOUNTAIN F. ENTERPRISES: Faces Place Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain F.
Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned as Matthew Place vs.
Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00294802-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 18, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. provides vegetation management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp.
III (NYSE:MPLN MPLN.WS, CCXX, CCXX.WS, CCXX.U): (i) between July
12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and
(ii) 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 (collectively,
"MultiPlan"), which merger was consummated in October 2020 (the
"Merger"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 26, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased MultiPlan securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the MultiPlan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1983.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. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 26, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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; (2) 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, as payors developed competing services
and sought alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs;
(3) 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, who had expressed
dissatisfaction with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services
and balanced billing practices, causing the Company's to cut its
take rate by up to half in some cases; (4) 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; (5) as a result of the
foregoing, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth
and to improve its competitive positioning through pricey
acquisitions, including through the purchase of HST for $140
million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive only
one month after the Merger; and (6) 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. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the MultiPlan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1983.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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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]

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Verger Sues Over Decline in Securities Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Verger, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MULTIPLAN CORPORATION f/k/a CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORP.
III, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY TARAGIN, MARK KLEIN, MICHAEL ECK, GLENN R.
AUGUST, PAUL GALANT, JEREMY PAUL ABSON, MALCOLM S. McDERMID, KAREN
G. MILLS, BONNIE JONAS, MARK TABAK, DAVID REDMOND, M. KLEIN AND
COMPANY, CHURCHILL SPONSOR III, LLC, and THE KLEIN GROUP LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01965 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021), is brought on behalf
of a class consisting of: (i) all purchasers of Churchill III
securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive;
and (ii) 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 (collectively,
"MultiPlan") consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"); and to
seek remedy for violatons of the Exchange Act due to securities
price decline.

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"). Each unit was priced at
$10 and consisted of one share of Class A common stock and
one-fourth of one warrant to purchase Class A shares. Each whole
warrant entitled the holder to purchase one share of Churchill III
Class A common stock at $11.50 per share. In July 2020, Churchill
III announced that it had entered into a preliminary agreement,
subject to shareholder approval, to merge with MultiPlan, a New
York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions
provider to the U.S. healthcare industry. MultiPlan's customers
include large national insurance companies, provider-sponsored
health plans, bill review companies, Taft-Hartley plans, and other
entities that pay medical bills in the commercial healthcare,
government, workers' compensation, auto, medical, and dental
markets. On October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to approve the
Merger at a special shareholders meeting.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
short research investment firm Muddy Waters published a report on
Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets
The Great 2020 Money Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). The Muddy
Waters Report was based on extensive non-public sources such as
interviews with former MultiPlan executives and other industry
experts, as well as proprietary analysis. The Muddy Waters Report
revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest
client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company
up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow
within two years. According to the Muddy Waters Report, MultiPlan
was in significant financial decline because of its fundamentally
flawed business model, which profited from excessively high
healthcare costs. UnitedHealth had purportedly launched a
competitor, Naviguard, to reduce its business with MultiPlan and
bring the over-priced and conflicted services offered by MultiPlan
in house.

The Muddy Waters Report stated that the decline in MultiPlan's
sales left the Company "no choice but to try to buy some form of
revenue growth to mask eroding fundamentals." Indeed, MultiPlan had
just recently announced the acquisition of healthcare technology
company HST for $140 million, which performed similar functions to
those offered by Naviguard. The Muddy Waters Report described HST
as "an attempt to buy an inferior, significantly smaller Naviguard
stand-in, and at a premium price" from a former MultiPlan
executive. As a result of 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) 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; (ii) 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, as
payors developed competing services and sought alternatives to
eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (iii) 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, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the price and
quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced billing practices,
causing the Company to cut its take rate by up to half in some
cases; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, MultiPlan was set to
continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased
competition, and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the
Merger; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, MultiPlan was forced
to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its competitive
positioning through pricey acquisitions, including through the
purchase of HST for $140 million at a premium price from a former
MultiPlan executive only one month after the Merger; (vi) as a
result of all 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; and (vii) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

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

Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a blank check
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

NATIONAL WHOLESALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Jaquez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL WHOLESALE LIQUIDATORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01692 (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2021)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.nwl.me, on or around February 2021, by using popular screen
reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, with the intent
of browsing and potentially making purchase, he has encountered
multiple access barriers which denied him access similar to that of
a sighted individual. The Defendant's Website purportedly lacked of
variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred the
Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of
the Defendant's public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because of its failure to provide equal
access to visually impaired people to its Website as a result of
its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
2.1.

National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc. is a discount products company
that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


NATIXIS INVESTMENT: Faces Waldner ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Waldner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of The 401(k) Savings and
Retirement Plan, Sponsored by Natixis Investment Managers, L.P. v.
Natixis Investment Managers, L.P., Natixis Investment Managers,
L.P. Retirement Committee, and John and Jane Does 1–20, Case No.
1:21-cv-10273 (D. Mass., Feb. 18, 2021) is a class action brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
against the Defendants alleging the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in unlawful self-dealing with respect
to the Plan in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan,
its participants, and its beneficiaries.

The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy this alleged unlawful
conduct, recover losses to the Plan, and obtain other appropriate
relief as provided by ERISA.

Plaintiff Brian Waldner resides in Carlisle, Massachusetts and has
been a participant in the Plan since July 2017. As a Plan
participant, he invested in multiple investment options managed by
Natixis and its subsidiaries, including the Gateway Fund, the AEW
Real Estate Fund, and Oakmark International, and has been
financially injured by the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the suit
says.

The 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan, Sponsored by Natixis
Investment Managers, L.P. (the Plan), was established by Natixis on
January 1, 1995. The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan"
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1002(2)(A) and a "defined
contribution plan" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
1002(34), covering all eligible current and former employees of
Natixis and its subsidiaries, including the Plaintiff.

The Plan has held approximately $300 million to $440 million in
assets during the statutory period. The Plan also had approximately
1,500 to 1,800 active participants with balances at any time during
the relevant period.

Natixis is an American French-based global asset management company
that claims $1,008 billion in assets under management as of March
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Patricia C. Dana, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  pdana@nka.com

NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Chacon Sues Over Medical Information Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CHACON and LEONARD BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEBRASKA MEDICINE,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00070-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb., Feb. 24, 2021)
seeks to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of the
Plaintiffs and the Class' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failure to provide timely and adequate notice
to the Plaintiffs and the Class that their information had been
subject to the unauthorized access.

According to the complaint, the class action arises out of the
recent targeted cyber-attack at Defendant's medical facilities that
disrupted operations and among other things, allowed a third party
to access the Defendant's computer systems and data, resulting in
the removal of highly sensitive personal information and medical
records of approximately 219,000 patients from the Defendant's
computer network (the "Cyber-Attack").

As a result of the Cyber-Attack, the Plaintiffs and Class suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their
private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their
contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, the suit alleges.

Nebraska Medicine operates as a non-profit organization. The
Hospital offers oncology, neurological science, child life
facilities, diabetes care, and cardiology services. [BN]


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               -and-

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com


NEWREZ LLC: Faces Mojarro FCRA Suit Over Misreporting of Mortgage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY MOJARRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEWREZ LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
2:21-cv-01500 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2021) seeks relief from the
Defendants' misreporting and overcharging of Plaintiff's mortgage
on Plaintiff's real property in violation of the terms of a written
agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of contract and
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages and reasonable
attorney's fees for Shellpoint's breach of contract and FCRA
violations.

The Plaintiff's real property is located at 5817 Friends Avenue,
Whittier, California.

Shellpoint is a residential mortgage servicing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
           JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
           300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
           Glendale, CA 91202
           Telephone: (818) 630-7280
           Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
           E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com

NURTURE INC: Faces Smith $5MM Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jodi Smith v. Nurture, Inc., Case No.
7:21-cv-01534-UA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021).

The nature of suit states contract product liability demanding
$5,000,000 in damages.

Nurture is located in New York City and is part of the Food
Wholesalers Industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          Charles Joseph LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

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

NVIDIA CORP: Court Tosses Iron Workers' First Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT FUNDS, et al., Plaintiffs
v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07669-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and
denied the Defendants' motion to strike allegations in the FAC.

The case is a consolidated securities class action brought by
Plaintiffs E. Öhman J:or Fonder and Stichting Pensionenonds PGB
against Defendant NVIDIA and Jensen Huang, co-founder and CEO,
Colette Kress, CFO and Executive VP, and Jeff Fisher, Senior VP.
In their initial complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Court dismissed the CCAC
with leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that reasserts the same claims.

The Plaintiffs bring the securities action individually and "on
behalf of all others who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of NVIDIA Corporation" between May 10, 2017, and Nov. 14,
2018, inclusive."

NVIDIA is a multinational technology company that produces graphic
processing units ("GPUs"), types of processors that are used in
rendering computer graphics.  Its GPU business is reported by
market platforms, two of which are at issue in the case.  The first
platform is chips designed for videogames -- the Gaming platform --
comprised primarily of the "GeForce" GPU product line.  Original
Equipment Manufacturer & IP ("OEM") is a second platform for chips
designed for devices such as tablets and phones.  The gaming
platform is NVIDIA's largest market.  Generally, NVIDIA does not
sell GPUs directly to the end users, but rather to device
manufacturers, referred to as "partners," that incorporate the GPUs
into graphic or video cards.

Throughout the Class Period, NVIDIA reported skyrocketing revenues
in its core Gaming segment.  The Plaintiffs allege that investors
and analysts alike questioned whether those revenues truly derived
from GeForce GPU sales to gamers or, rather, were from sales of
GeForce GPUs to cryptocurrency miners, whose demand was at risk of
disappearing if the economics of mining turned negative.  They
allege that three general representations in the Defendants'
responses to these questions were materially false and misleading
and concealed from investors the enormous risk to NVIDIA's
financial results posed by the Company's outsized exposure to
crypto-mining.  When the purported truth was revealed, NVIDIA's
stock price fell and the putative class members suffered financial
losses.

Now pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the FAC.  Also pending before the Court is their motion to strike
allegations in the FAC.

The Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of or
consider incorporated by reference the following 35 documents: 15
items as to which the Court previously granted judicial notice, 13
items as to which the Court previously denied the Defendants'
request as moot, and 7 new items first alleged in the FAC.  The
Plaintiffs object to the Defendants' request as to at least 14 of
the 35 documents.

The Defendants re-attach exhibits as to which the Court previously
granted judicial notice: Exhibits A, C, D, G, H, J, M, N, O, T, X,
Y, AA, BB.  The Court previously granted judicial notice as to
these exhibits for the purpose of determining what was disclosed to
the market."  The Plaintiffs do not object to the Court considering
these exhibits for that limited purpose.

Accordingly, because the Plaintiff refers extensively to the
documents and the documents form the basis of its claim, Judge
Gilliam ggranted judicial notice of these exhibits for the purpose
of determining what was disclosed to the market.  He also granted
judicial notice on the same basis as to the following documents
newly referenced in the FAC: Exhibits HH (Jon Peddie Research
Report), II (NVIDIA Presentation - Citigroup Conference), JJ
(NVIDIA Earnings Call-2Q 2016), KK (NVIDIA Presentation - Credit
Suisse Conference), and LL (NVIDIA Presentation - Morgan Stanley
Conference).  He also considered Exhibit MM, the internal company
2017 presentation drafted by members of NVIDIA's China market team.
Given that the Plaintiffs include images of select slides in the
FAC and rely on this presentation for various allegations, the
Judge finds it incorporated by reference, and granted the request
as to Exhibit MM on this basis.

The Defendants also request that the Court deems Exhibit NN, a
NVIDIA-produced video, incorporated by reference, but it is not
clear whether Exhibit NN is the same video referenced in the FAC.
Given this uncertainty, the Judge denied the request to incorporate
by reference Exhibit NN.  Additionally, he granted the Defendants'
request for judicial notice as to Exhibit FF because "stock price
is public information capable of accurate and ready determination
by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned."  Lastly, the Defendants' Exhibits B, E, K, L, P, Q, R,
S, U, V, W, Z, and DD are not specifically referenced in the CCAC
or relevant to the Court's analysis.  Therefore, the Judge denied
as moot the Defendants' request as to those exhibits.

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead falsity, scienter, and
control person liability.

Jude Gilliam agrees that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead
scienter.  He finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations again fail to
raise a strong inference of scienter, largely because they do not
adequately tie the specific contents of any of these data sources
to particular statements so as to plausibly show that the Defendant
who made each specified statement knowingly or recklessly spoke
falsely.  Viewed as a whole, the FAC's factual allegations do not
plausibly suggest that the Defendants acted with at least
deliberate or conscious recklessness.  While he reaches this
conclusion after a holistic inquiry, the Judge examines
inadequacies in particular allegations with respect to each of the
Defendants.  Because he finds that the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claim fails, ihe must also dismiss the Section 20(a) control person
liability claim.

And because the Plaintiffs have previously been granted leave to
amend and have subsequently failed to add the requisite
particularity, Judge Gilliam finds that leave to amend is
unwarranted.  Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss without leave to amend.  The clerk is directed to enter
judgment in favor of the Defendants and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mvwxt9r from Leagle.com.


OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Olin, K.A. Steel
Chemicals continues to defend several class action suits related to
the sale of caustic soda.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other alleged caustic soda producers were named as defendants in
six purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and
26, 2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one
or more of the defendants, their parents, predecessors,
subsidiaries or affiliates at any time on or after October 1, 2015.


Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals and other caustic soda producers were
also named as defendants in two purported class action civil
lawsuits filed July 25 and 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. indirectly from
distributors at any time on or after October 1, 2015.

The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.


Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.


Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton.


OLIN CORP: Unit Faces Suits Over Sale of Caustic Soda in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that lin, K.A. Steel Chemicals
faces several class action suits related to the sale of caustic
soda in Canada.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemical, Olin Canada ULC, 3229897 Nova Scotia Co.
(wholly owned subsidiaries of Olin) and other alleged caustic soda
producers were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil
lawsuit filed on October 7, 2020 in the Quebec Superior Court
(Province of Quebec) on behalf of the respective named plaintiff
and a putative class comprised of all Canadian persons and entities
who, between October 1, 2015 and the date of the eventual class
action certification, directly or indirectly purchased caustic soda
or products containing caustic soda, produced by one or more of the
defendants.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemical, Olin Canada ULC, 3229897 Nova Scotia Co.
and other alleged caustic soda producers were also named as
defendants in a proposed class action civil lawsuit filed November
13, 2020 in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of the respective
named plaintiff and a putative class comprised of all legal persons
in Canada who, at any time on or after October 1, 2015 to the
present, directly or indirectly purchased caustic soda.

The other defendants named in the two Canadian lawsuits are
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation,
Oxy Canada Sales, Inc., Westlake Chemical Corporation, Axiall
Canada, Inc., Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain control, and stabilize the price of caustic soda, divide
and allocate markets, sales, customers and territories, fix,
maintain, control, prevent, restrict, lessen or eliminate
production and supply of caustic soda, and agree to idle capacity
of production and/or refrain from increasing their production
capacity.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, including
punitive damages.

Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton.

OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit in NY Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the purported securities class action suit headed by
Royce Setzer, is pending.

The Company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert
O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported
securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff
Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of
attorneys and experts, and other relief.

The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading
statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the
financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators,
the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the
impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the
uncollectibility of certain receivables.

The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S
District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint in August 2020.

In November 2020, the Company and the officers named in the
Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is fully briefed and pending
before the District Court.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Frayre Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onemain Financial
Group, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Michael Frayre v.
Onemain Financial Group, LLC. Case No. 34-2021-00294892-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 19, 2021).

The case is brought over alleged employment-related violations.

The Defendants include Does 1-100, Onemain Consumer Loan, Inc.,
Onemain Financial Group, LLC, Onemain General Services Corporation,
and Onemain Mortgage Services, Inc..

Onemain is located in Baltimore, Maryland and is part of the
Consumer Lending Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Van Note, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
          555 12th Street, Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: lvannote@scalaw.com

ONTRAK INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 3, 2021, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ: OTRK).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is November 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-ontrak-inc/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Ontrak, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than May 3, 2021 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm’s website at www.federmanlaw.com[GN]

ONTRAK INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Ontrak, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ:OTRK)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ontrak-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13386&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Class Period: November 5, 2020 - February 26, 2021

Allegations against OTRK include that: (1) 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, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com

SOURCE: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong [GN]

ORBIT ENERGY: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orbit Energy & Power,
LLC. The case is captioned as ANDREW PERRONG v. ORBIT ENERGY &
POWER, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00777-TJS (E.D. Pa., Feb. 19, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Timothy J. Savage.

The Defendant offers solar financing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Clinton Kelley, Esq.
          304 Ross St., 7th FL
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 454-5599
          E-mail: gckesq@gmail.com

OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Grainger Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR., Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF
OTTAWA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-501 (W.D. Mich.),
Judge Paul L. Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Southern Division: grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denies the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Michigan's General Property Tax Act authorizes the foreclosure and
subsequent sale of tax-delinquent real property.  Plaintiff
Grainger owed approximately $21,500 in property taxes. His property
was valued at more than $600,000. The property was forfeited to the
Ottawa County Treasurer and foreclosed upon, after which the
property was sold at a public auction for almost $400,000.  Ottawa
County has since refused to give the Plaintiff any of the proceeds
from the sale.

The Plaintiff contends the tax foreclosure, the sale of his
property, and the retention of the surplus is representative of
situations in counties across the Western District of Michigan.

The Plaintiff sued all (or almost all) counties in the Western
District of Michigan (County Defendants) and the county treasurer
for each county (Individual Defendants).  In some cases, a former
county treasurer is a named defendant.  The Individual Defendants
are sued in their individual and their official capacities.  He
seeks to certify a class a class of similarly-situated former
property owners.

The controlling pleading is the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint.  The Plaintiff asserts eight counts or claims.

Count I raises a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments against all the Defendants.  Count II raises a takings
claims "arising directly" under the Fifth Amendment against all the
Defendants.  Count III raises a state-law claim for inverse
condemnation against the County Defendants and the Individual
Defendants in their official capacities.  Count IV raises an
eminent domain claim under Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan
Constitution against the County Defendants and the Individual
Defendants in their official capacities.  Count V raises an Eighth
Amendment claim for excessive fines against all defendants.  Count
VI raises a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
against all the Defendants.  Count VII raises a Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process claim against all the Defendants.
Finally, Count VIII raises a state-law claim for unjust enrichment
against the County Defendants.

Multiple motions are pending and Judge Maloney's Opinion addresses
five of those motions.  The Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The Defendants have filed four motions to dismiss.
The first motion is filed on behalf of 39 counties and their
treasurers (First Defendants).  The second motion is filed on
behalf of Ottawa County, Amanda Price and Bradley Slagh (Ottawa
Defendants).  The third motion is filed on behalf of Van Buren
County, Karen Makay, and Trisha Nesbitt (Van Buren Defendants).
The fourth motion is filed on behalf of Baraga County, Anne Koski,
Charlevoix County, Marilyn Cousineau, Ontonagon County, and Jeanne
Pollard (Baraga Defendants).  The Defendants raise jurisdictional
concerns under Rule 12(b)(1) and challenges to the merits of
certain claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Maloney first resolves the motion to dismiss.  All four
motions were filed months before the Plaintiff filed his motion for
class certification.  He grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  He grants the Defendants' motions
for all of the Plaintiff's claims against the Individual Defendants
as well as Counts 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.  Those Defendants and claims
are dismissed.  He denies the Defendants' motions are denied for
Counts 1, 3, and 8.

Among other things, the Judge denies the Defendants' motions to
dismiss Count 1 because the Plaintiff's claim to the surplus
proceeds does not interfere with Michigan's assessment, levy or
collection of a tax.  The Defendants collected the taxes due when
they sold the Plaintiff's property and applied the proceeds to the
delinquent property taxes and the Plaintiff's claim arises from the
Defendants' refusal to refund the excess proceeds of the sale.
None of the authority cited by Defendants on this point address a
takings or just compensation claim to the surplus proceeds from the
sale of a tax delinquent property.

The Judge also denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss Count 3
because the Plaintiff has pled facts to support a claim for inverse
condemnation.  He says the Plaintiff has alleged that Ottawa County
initiated tax delinquency foreclosure proceedings against his
property.  Eventually, Ottawa County sold the property and kept the
proceeds of the sale.  The Plaintiff makes claims to the surplus
proceeds.  The Defendants' arguments for dismissing the claims are
not persuasive.  The Plaintiff retained an interest in any surplus
following the sale of the property.  The Defendants have not given
the Plaintiff any of the surplus.  Those facts state a takings
claim under the Michigan Constitution.  And, an inverse
condemnation claim is the proper vehicle for enforcing the
constitutional prohibition on takings without compensation.

The Judge further declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for
unjust enrichment (Count 8).  He says, the Court is bound to follow
Rafaeli and Dean, which sanction a property owner's interest in the
surplus proceeds following a tax-foreclosure sale through a claim
for unjust enrichment.  The Defendants' argument that the Plaintiff
lost all rights and interests to the property through the
foreclosure proceedings was rejected by Rafaeli.  The Defendants'
argument that the Plaintiff comes with unclean hands does not
require a different conclusion.

Having concluded that some of the Plaintiff's claims survive the
motions to dismiss, the Judge considers the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The Plaintiff requests the Court certifies a
class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

The Defendants filed three briefs in response.  The Plaintiff filed
a reply to each brief in opposition.

Judge Maloney denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  He offers two reasons for his holding.  First, to
benefit from equitable tolling, a party must have been diligent in
pursuit of its claims.  A would-be class representative who
commences suit after expiration of the limitations period, however,
can hardly qualify as diligent in asserting claims and pursuing
relief." Id. Second, allowing class actions lawsuits, in contrast
to lawsuits asserting individual claims, would create a situation
where the statute of limitation is repeatedly tolled.  The time to
file individual actions once a class action ends is finite,
extended only by the time the class suit was pending; the time for
filing successive class suits, if tolling were allowed, could be
limitless.

The Plaintiff can maintain the lawsuit for his individual claims,
but he cannot seek to represent a class.  The Plaintiff's claims
accrued in 2013.  Following Crown, Cork & Seal Company,
Incorporated v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the Plaintiff can
maintain the lawsuit for his individual federal claims.  Following
China Agritech, Incorporated v. Resh, 138 S.Ct. 1800 (2018), the
Judge must deny the Plaintiff's request for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5czs8nck from Leagle.com.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Mattress Contains Fiberglass, Watkins Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WATKINS, and MARCIA WATKINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC.; JEFFCO FIBRES,
INC; and VENTEX, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00192 (E.D. Va., Feb. 19,
2021) alleges that the Defendants manufactured, marketed and sold a
mattress to Mr. and Mrs. Watkins and thousands of other consumers,
falsely representing that it was natural and hypoallergenic.

In fact, the mattress sold to the Plaintiffs and other consumers
like them contained health-threatening fiberglass, a problem
non-natural component.

The Defendants falsely represented the mattress contained an inner
latex component that is "easy to clean" along with an outer,
zippered cover and no warning not to unzip the cover. The presence
of the fiberglass was discoverable only after purchase and use of
the mattress, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA), as well as upon related state laws seeking
actual, statutory and punitive damages.

On around August 4, 2014, Plaintiffs David and Marcia Watkins
purchased the "Select Luxury E.C.O. Choice of Firmness 10-inch
Natural Latex Hybrid Mattress" (the "Mattress") from Defendant
Overstock. The Mattress was manufactured by Defendant Jeffco as
comprising three components: (i) an inner flammable hybrid foam
core; (ii) an inner fiberglass fire retardant barrier sock
("fiberglass sock"); and (iii) an outer zippered concealing cover
("zippered cover"). The included a fiberglass sock was manufactured
by Defendant Ventex.

Defendant Overstock is foreign corporation that does business
nationwide through their online Website.

Defendant Jeffco is a foreign corporation that manufactures
mattresses, including the one that is the subject of this
litigation.

Defendant Ventex is a corporation that manufactures mattress sock
covers, including the one that is the subject of this
litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas R. Breeden, Esq.
          THOMAS R. BREEDEN, P.C.
          10326 Lomond Drive
          Manassas, VA 20109
          Telephone: (703) 361-9277
          Facsimile: (703) 337-0441
          E-mail: TRB@TBreedenlaw.com

PACCAR INC: Continues to Defend Claims Related to EC Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
PACCAR 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 that the company
continues to defend claims related to a European Commission (EC)
probe.

On July 19, 2016, EC concluded its investigation of all major
European truck manufacturers and reached a settlement with DAF
Trucks N.V., its subsidiary DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH and PACCAR
Inc as their parent.

Following the settlement, claims and lawsuits have been filed
against PACCAR Inc, DAF and certain DAF subsidiaries and other
truck manufacturers in various European jurisdictions. These claims
and lawsuits include a number of collective proceedings, including
proposed class actions in the United Kingdom, alleging EC-related
claims and seeking unspecified damages. Others may bring EC-related
claims and lawsuits against PACCAR Inc or its subsidiaries.

While PACCAR Inc believes it has meritorious defenses, such claims
and lawsuits will likely take a significant period of time to
resolve. PACCAR Inc cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if
any, that may result given the early stage of these claims and
lawsuits.

An adverse outcome of such proceedings could have a material impact
on PACCAR Inc's results of operations.

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

PACCAR Inc. is a global technology company whose Truck segment
includes the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium-
and heavy-duty commercial trucks. In North America, trucks are sold
under the Kenworth and Peterbilt nameplates, in Europe, under the
DAF nameplate and in Australia and South America, under the
Kenworth and DAF nameplates. The Parts segment includes the
distribution of aftermarket parts for trucks and related commercial
vehicles. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.

PAWNEE LEASING: Faces PoshVille $5MM Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pawnee Leasing. The
case is captioned as PoshVille, Inc., et al. v. Pawnee Leasing, a
Colorado Corp., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01465-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 17, 2021).

The lawsuit demands $5,000,000 in damages. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

The Defendants include First Pacific Funding, a Washington Corp.;
Jessy Oday, in his personal capacity; Jill Lottermoser, in her
personal capacity; Becca Papachek, in her personal capacity; Kathy
Okeefe, in her personal capacity; Kenny Fitzgerald, in his personal
capacity; Mike Prenzlow, in his personal capacity; and Amanda L.
Graham, in her personal capacity.

Pawnee Leasing Corporation is a small-ticket equipment leasing
company specializing in providing business equipment Leases from
$1000 - $250000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Liana Serobian, Esq.
          SEROBIAN LAW INC
          100 North Brand Boulevard Suite 600
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 539-2249
          Facsimile: (818) 539-2250
          E-mail: serobian@yahoo.com

PAYPAL INC: Cal. App. Affirms Stipulated Judgment in Chen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THEO CHEN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
PAYPAL, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A158118 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District,
Division Two, affirmed the trial court's stipulated judgment for
PayPal.

The appeal arises out of a putative class action brought against
respondent PayPal and eBay, Inc.by a group of users of their
services.  The action challenges various provisions of PayPal's and
eBay's respective user agreements, including, as to PayPal, its
risk-based-holds and reserves provisions, its
interest-on-pooled-accounts provision, and its 180-day buyer
protection policy.

PayPal provides online payment services for individuals and
businesses.  As the Appellants allege, PayPal enables users to send
and receive payments online and across various locations,
currencies, and languages through credit cards, bank accounts,
promotional financing, and store balances, without sharing
financial information.  The Appellants are 10 California residents
who sell goods on eBay, an online marketplace, as part of their
online businesses and use PayPal to receive payments for many of
their sales.

The action began on Aug. 5, 2015, when the Appellants filed their
initial complaint, which was removed to federal court and
subsequently remanded.  That complaint was followed on Oct.  11,
2016, by a first amended complaint, a putative class action naming
PayPal and eBay as defendants and seeking "damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and an accounting."

On Nov. 15, 2016, PayPal demurred to the first amended complaint.
The trial court issued a tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer
in its entirety and granting the Appellants leave to amend.  The
Appellants did not contest the tentative ruling, which became the
order of the court.

The Appellants filed a second amended complaint ("SAC"), again a
putative class action against PayPal and eBay.  It alleges 23
causes of action, 13 of which are alleged only as to eBay and are
irrelevant to the issues before the Court.  It alleges seven causes
of action only as to PayPal: breach of contract with respect to
holds (third cause of action); breach of fiduciary duty regarding
holds (fourth cause of action); breach of fiduciary duty for
conversion of interest (fifth cause of action); unconscionable
contract provisions regarding interest on pooled bank accounts
(sixth cause of action); declaratory and injunctive relief
regarding unconscionable contract provision or policy (eighteenth
cause of action); unlawful business practices (twenty-first cause
of action); and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA") (twenty-second cause of action).  And it alleges three
causes of action as to both PayPal and eBay: breach of contract
regarding seller protection (first cause of action); aiding and
abetting buyers in defrauding sellers (nineteenth cause of action);
and accounting (twenty-third cause of action).

PayPal again demurred to the Appellants' second amended complaint,
as did eBay.  The trial court overruled the demurrer as to the
first and twenty-third causes of action, and sustained it as to the
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first,
and twenty-second causes of action, doing so without leave to amend
because the Appellants have been given ample opportunities to amend
to allege sufficient facts to state these causes of action and have
failed to do so.

The Appellants petitioned for a writ of mandate challenging the
trial court's order.  The Appellate Court summarily denied the
petition on Nov. 13, 2017.

On July 11, 2019, the Appellants moved to dismiss the first and
twenty-third causes of action against PayPal.  The trial court
granted the motion, and on August 12, pursuant to a stipulated
request for entry of judgment, it entered judgment in favor of
PayPal, with the parties to bear their own costs.

The timely appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals holds that PayPal's risk-based-holds causes of
action fail to state a claim.  The Appellants' third and fourth
causes of action relate to PayPal's practice of placing holds on
certain sellers' funds as provided for in sections 10.4 and 10.5 of
the user agreement.  For their third cause of action, the
Appellants seek support from the district court's ruling in
Campbell v. eBay, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110806.  Campbell was
a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleged PayPal
breached its fiduciary duty by implementing holds in an arbitrary
manner.

The Court of Appeals is unpersuaded that the same outcome should
result in the case, as there is no indication the Campbell
plaintiff alleged that PayPal implemented the holds after eBay
reduced the rating of the sellers or alleged any other specific
facts that contradict the general allegation that PayPal acted
arbitrarily.

The Appellants' fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty
alleges that PayPal, which acts as an agent for its users, breached
its fiduciary duty "to act with the utmost good faith and in the
best interests of" the Appellants "by placing holds and reserves on
funds belonging to them under the false pretense that their sales
transactions involve a 'high risk,' when in fact, there is little
or no risk involved in the transactions upon which Defendant PayPal
imposes its holds and reserves."  For the reasons the third cause
of action fails to state a claim, so too, does the fourth cause of
action.

The Court of Appeals also holds that the
interest-on-pooled-accounts causes of action fail to state a claim.
The fifth, sixth, twenty-first, and twenty-second causes of action
pertain to sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the user agreement.  The Court
finds that the flaws in the argument that the
assignment-of-interest provision lacks consideration are at least
twofold.  First, the question of whether a contract is supported by
valid consideration is based on the overall exchange between the
parties, not by looking at specific terms in isolation.  Second,
the Appellants provide no authority to support their theory the
different users are prohibited from agreeing to different
consideration when they consent to the user agreement.

Regarding the sixth cause of action, assuming without deciding that
the user agreement is a contract of adhesion, the Court of Appeals
agrees that any procedural unconscionability is minimal.  The
problem for Appellants, however, is the absence of allegations
amounting to substantive unconscionability.  Hence, the demurrer to
this cause of action was properly sustained.

Regarding the twenty-second cause of action, the SAC alleges that
PayPal violated the CLRA by including the
interest-on-pooled-accounts provision in the user agreement.  As
the Appellants acknowledge, these two claims are tethered to their
claim that the interest-on-the-pooled-accounts provision is
unconscionable.  Because the unconscionability claim is not viable,
the UCL and CLRA claims necessarily fail.

The Court of Appeals further holds the eighteenth cause of action
alleging that PayPal's 180-day buyer protection policy is
unconscionable fails to state a claim.  The eighteenth cause of
action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief relating to another
allegedly unconscionable provision, one that allows a buyer 180
days in which to dispute a purchase on certain grounds.  The Court
finds that nothing about the buyer protection policy shocks the
conscience.  A 180-day period in which to dispute a transaction on
the ground that an item was either not received or not
significantly as described is not overly harsh, unduly oppressive,
or unreasonably favorable to PayPal.  In essence, the Appellants
dislike the revised buyer protection policy because the more time a
buyer has to initiate a SNAD dispute, the less favorable it is to
appellants as sellers.  But the Appellants' dislike of this policy
does not make it unconscionable.

The final cause of action at issue -- the nineteenth cause of
action -- is for aiding and abetting buyers in defrauding sellers.
The Court of Appeals holds that the SAC's allegations do not state
a claim for aiding and abetting fraud.  In other words, the SAC
does not allege that PayPal implements its dispute resolution
practices in a manner intended to aid buyers in defrauding sellers.
Indeed, the Appellants' aiding and abetting theory is nonsensical:
what would PayPal stand to gain from assisting buyers in defrauding
sellers when the fraud is contrary to PayPal's interest?

Finally, the Court of Appeals considers whether the trial court
should have granted the Appellants leave to amend to their
complaint. It holds that the Appellants have the burden of proving
that an amendment would cure the defect and they have not shown how
they can cure the above defects.  There was thus no abuse of
discretion in denying leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
trial court properly sustained the demurrer and did not abuse its
discretion in doing so without leave to amend.  It affirmed the
judgment.  PayPal will recover its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mns8zesp from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Anthony A, Ferrigno, Anthony A. Ferrigno; Franklin &
Franklin APC, J. David Franklin -- jdfranklaw@san.rr.com --
Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant Theo Chen.

Cooley LLP, Max A. Bernstein -- mbernstein@cooley.com -- Whitty
Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Attorney for Defendant and
Respondent PayPal, Inc.


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Faces Kupiec Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PeopleConnect, Inc.
The case is captioned as Natalia  Kupiec v. PeopleConnect, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00971 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over personal property claims demanding
$9,999,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. John F.
Kness.

The Defendants include US Search, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability
Company.

Peopleconnect provides online social network services. The Company
offers basic people search, list management, criminal records,
employee screening, human resources background checks, and identity
theft protection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle St., 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 239-3362
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Unlawfully Uses Names in Ads, Kupiec Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA KUPIEC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
INTELIUS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00968
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2021) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants to put an end to their unlawful practice of using the
names and identities of Illinois residents without their consent in
order to promote its service.

Defendant People Connect operates a Website called Intelius.com
that sells access to a database containing proprietary "detailed
reports" about people to anybody willing to pay Intelius for a
monthly subscription.

To market its service, Intelius encourages consumers to perform a
free "people search" on its Website. When consumers perform a free
search for an individual -- by typing the individual's first and
last name into the search bar -- Intelius displays a page featuring
the searched individual's full name alongside certain, but limited,
uniquely identifying information, including age, location, and
names of relatives. The purpose of this page is twofold: first, it
shows potential customers that the Intelius database contains a
detailed report for the specific individual they searched for and
represents that the detailed report contains much more information
about the individual than the "free" report, and second, it offers
to sell them a paid subscription to its service, where they can
access detailed reports about anybody in its database, the suit
says.

In other words, Intelius does not offer to sell detailed reports
about the individuals searched on its Website, but rather, uses
their identities to sell subscriptions to its paid service.

Unsurprisingly, the people appearing in these advertisements never
provided the Defendants with their consent (written or otherwise)
to use their identities for any reason, let alone for marketing
purposes, the suit adds.

By using Illinois residents' full names in its advertisements
without their consent and for its commercial gain, the Defendants
violated -- and continue to violate -- the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act ("IRPA"), the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff Kupiec is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Illinois.

PeopleConnect, Inc., owns and operates Intelius, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com

PETROBRAS BRASILEIRO: Investor Mulls Suit Over Market Value Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mann, writing for The Rio Times, reports that Attorney
Andre Almeida, one of the parties behind the class action lawsuit
for investor losses resulting from the corruption scheme
investigated by Operation Lava Jato, says he is now preparing a
similar lawsuit in relation to the company's loss of market value
after intervention by President Jair Bolsonaro.

He claims that the government oversteps its duties as majority
shareholder by wanting the company to implement public policies of
interest to the federal government. "Petrobras is not a Brazilian
government company, it is owned by private shareholders," he says.
[GN]



PETROCHOICE LLC: Class in Gravely FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA GRAVELY, et al., Plaintiffs v. PETROCHOICE,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-5409 (E.D. Pa.), Judge C.
Darnell Jones, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed
as a Collective Action and Facilitate Notice Under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs Gravely and Odell Bradley, Jr., brought suit against
Defendant PetroChoice, alleging an unlawful failure to pay them and
other similarly situated individuals overtime compensation pursuant
to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA"), 43 P.S. Section 333.100, et seq.

The Defendant is an employer that sells and distributes engine and
industrial lubrication-related products, as well as certain
chemicals and cleaners to a range of industries. The Plaintiffs are
former, non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs bring the present suit on behalf of themselves and
all Prospective Class Members.  To date, there has been one opt-in
Plaintiff, Tarika Wooten.

The Plaintiffs define Prospective Class Members as those who,
within the past three years, are/were employed by the Defendant in
the non-exempt, hourly positions of Administrative Assistant,
Billing Specialist and/or Account Billing Specialist, and/or
Accounts Payable.

In all of these positions, the Prospective Class Members' primary
job responsibilities include providing data entry,
sending/receiving correspondence, phone conversations, and routine
clerical work.  Because the Plaintiffs and the Prospective Class
Members were/are hourly employees, they were/are subject to the
Defendant's meal break policy.  This policy is at the heart of the
Plaintiffs' complaint.

The Plaintiffs claim that even when employees regularly worked
through meal breaks, 30 minutes were still deducted from their
timecards.  They made the Defendant aware that its practices
diverted from its policies of compensating employees for all work
performed.  Even after it was made aware that the Plaintiffs and
the Prospective Class Members were working through their meal
breaks, the Plaintiffs note that employees continued to not receive
an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period and were not compensated for
all of their work.

On Nov. 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against the
Defendant.  They bring suit today on behalf of themselves and
Prospective Class Members alleging the Defendant violated FLSA and
PMWA by unlawfully denying them compensation and overtime
compensation due to the Defendant's policy and practice of: (1)
automatically deducting 30 minutes each workday for meal breaks
when the Plaintiffs and the Prospective Class Members continued to
perform work; (2) failing to accurately track and compensate them
for all time spent performing compensable work; (3) failing to
compensate them for all hours performing compensable work; and (4)
failing to compensate them overtime compensation at 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work
week.

At the request of the parties, the Court established a discovery
schedule providing for three months of class certification-focused
discovery on March 9, 2020.  The parties served and answered
written discovery, and, on June 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the
present Motion for Conditional Class Certification, seeking
conditional class certification based upon the following definition
of persons: "All persons presently or formerly employed by
Defendant during the past three (3) years in the position of
Administrative Assistant (AA), Billable Specialist and/or Account
Billing Specialist (BS), and/or Accounts Payable (AP), or in
positions with substantially similar job duties who were paid on an
hourly basis and subject to Defendant's unpaid meal break policy."

The Defendant submitted a response in opposition on June 16, 2020.
It responds that such a finding would be inappropriate because,
despite having undergone three months of discovery, the Plaintiffs
have failed to provide sufficient evidence to suggest that other
Potential Class Members were not compensated for time they worked
on meal breaks and were, thus, similarly situated to the
Plaintiffs.  Alternatively, it suggests request the Court to allow
the parties a reasonable amount of time to confer over the content
of any class certification notice given the stated flaws in the
Plaintiffs' present proposed notice.

Having reviewed all the pleadings at this preliminary stage, Judge
Jones finds the Plaintiffs have met their burden for conditional
class certification.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have shown
sufficient evidentiary support for conditional certification.
Though he takes note of the Defendant's policy requiring employees
to notify their supervisors if they were going to work through a
meal break, at this stage in the proceedings, the Judge says it is
not appropriate to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' claims on the
merits.

Because he has found sufficient support to grant the Plaintiffs'
conditional class certification, the Judge addresses the merits of
the Defendant's concerns regarding the notice the Plaintiffs will
be providing to prospective class members.  The Defendant disputes
that the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the Potential Class Members
is inadequate for several reasons, including that it does not
inform potential opt-ins of their right to retain their own
counsel, and it does not provide contact information for the
defense counsel.

The Judge holds that it is in the best interest of both the parties
and the Court to assure the class notice is appropriate before
being widely disseminated amongst the Prospective Class Members.
Accordingly, he requires the parties to confer and resolve and
issues with the proposed notice before it may be distributed
amongst Prospective Class Members.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification, but the parties must
meet and resolve any issues with the class notice before it may be
distributed to the Prospective Class Members.  An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8armc248 from Leagle.com.


PFIZER INC: Reconsider Bid in Burlington OK'd, Relief Sought Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BURLINGTON DRUG CO., INC. et al., Plaintiff v. PFIZER
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-DEA
(D.N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part Named
Consumers Sandra Hellgren and Anita Cox's motion for
reconsideration.

The Named Consumers seek reconsideration of the Court's Sept. 22,
2020 memorandum and order denying their motion (1) for relief from
part of Case Management Order No. 1; (2) to create a sub-class of
California Consumers; and (3) to appoint separate interim lead
counsel for the subclass.

The matter concerns a class action suit against Pfizer, Inc.,
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner-Lambert Co., Warner-Lambert
Co., LLC, Ranbaxy, Inc., and other Defendants in connection with an
alleged anticompetitive scheme to delay market entry of generic
versions of Lipitor, a cholesterol drug.  The Named Consumers
initially filed their suit in the California Superior Court in
2011, and the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated and transferred the case, along with other complaints,
to the Court in 2012.  Before the Court are four direct purchaser
actions and several "tag-along" direct and indirect purchaser
actions.

The Named Consumers allege that the California consumers paid
billions of dollars more for Lipitor than they would have in a
fully competitive market.  Based on their belief that there is a
conflict of interest between the California consumers and the other
end-payor Plaintiffs, Hellgren and Cox filed a motion seeking to
create an interim sub-class of California consumers and appoint
interim lead counsel to represent the sub-class in May 2020.  They
argued that they were the only Plaintiffs who have actually
consumed Lipitor and that they were entitled to be represented as a
sub-class of consumers who actually took the Lipitor pill.

By contrast, the Named Consumers contended, the other California
purchasers named in the Third Amended Complaint were entities who
did not literally consume the drug: two municipal corporations; the
cities of Providence, Rhode Island and Baltimore, Maryland; and
Bluecross/Blueshield of Louisiana ("BCBSLA") ("End-Payors").
Further -- and central to the present motion -- the Named Consumers
stated in the introduction section of their brief that "the cities
of Baltimore and Providence and BCBSLA may not have standing to sue
under California's antitrust laws because they suffered no damages
or did not purchase Lipitor or any generics in the state.

In its Sept. 22, 2020 Memorandum and Order, the Court addressed
that argument and held that Hellgren and Cox have not adequately
demonstrated that the standing issue warrants the creation of a new
subclass.  It also noted that it is at least conceivable that,
under Glumetza allegations that the Plaintiffs Baltimore,
Providence, and BCBSLA each purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for Lipitor or its generic equivalent' in California
would be adequate to confer standing.  That holding is the subject
of the Named Consumers' motion for reconsideration.

In the motion, the Named Consumers (1) argue that the Court erred
when it declined to rule on the standing issue, and (2) ask the
Court to "rule as a matter of law that it does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over these End-Payor Plaintiffs' claims under
the California Cartwright Act."  Accordingly, they seek dismissal
of the End-Payors' Third Amended Complaint as it relates to the
California causes of action.  Alternatively, it asks the Court to
order and permit limited discovery by the Hellgren and Cox
Plaintiffs into the factual basis for the End-Payors' subject
matter jurisdiction.

In short, the Named Consumers argue that the End-Payor Plaintiffs
lack standing to bring claims under the California Cartwright Act
because they did not purchase Lipitor and, therefore, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over -- and should dismiss --
those claims.  They believe the Court should have ruled on that
issue in its Sept. 22, 2020 decision and urge it to do so now upon
reconsideration.

The End-Payors oppose the Named Consumers' motion.  First, they
argue that reconsideration is not appropriate because the Named
Consumers never fully argued the standing issue.  Second, they
argue that the Court did not err in failing to dismiss the
California antitrust claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the Court has Article III jurisdiction over the entire
action based on diversity.  Third, they assert that even if the
Named Consumers had articulated standing and subject matter
jurisdiction arguments in their prior motion, it would not change
the disposition of the present motion.  Overall, the End-Payors
argue that the criteria for reconsideration have not been met, and
they ask the Court to deny the Named Consumers' motion.

The Named Consumers emphasize that reimbursing an insured client
for Lipitor is not enough to establish standing under the
Cartwright Act, and assert that the End-Payors have cited no
authority to convince the Court otherwise.  They maintain that
under California insurance law, "the act of reimbursing a portion
of the purchase price entitles the insurers to be subrogated to the
rights of the insured, but only to the extent that they
reimbursed."  Overall, they ask the Court to (1) rule on the
question of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) grant
their motion to create an interim sub-class of California consumers
who bought Lipitor and appoint separate lead counsel to represent
them.

In order to determine whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the End-Payors' California antitrust claims,
Judge Sheridan must examine the standing requirements under the
relevant state law.  The parties dispute whether the first prong of
the Article III standing test is met for their Cartwright Act claim
-- that is, whether the End-Payors suffered an injury in fact
because they reimbursed their clients for Lipitor but did not
purchase it for their own use.  In sum, the cases cited by the
Named Consumers neither reference the California Commercial Code's
definition of "buyer" or "purchaser," nor hold that Cartwright Act
standing demands such a narrow type of injury.

Applying the antirust principles set forth in Section II. B, the
Judge finds that the End-Payors did suffer an injury in fact by
nature of their payment for Lipitor.  He finds unpersuasive the
Named Consumers' arguments that only a particular type of purchase
constitutes an injury under the Cartwright Act, and that courts
should rely on the California Commercial Code's definitions of
"purchaser" or "buyer" when analyzing a party's standing under the
Act.

Because he finds that the End-Payors have standing to assert their
Cartwright Act claims, the Judge rejects the Named Consumers'
argument that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those
claims.  As such, he declines to dismiss those claims on that
basis.

Further, to the extent that the Named Consumers' oral argument on
Jan. 28, 2021 focused on the issue of creating a subclass of
California consumers, the Judge finds that the allegations are
sufficient to show that the named End-Payor Plaintiffs can
adequately represent the class.  Finding no change of
circumstances, new evidence, or clear error of law, he will deny
the relief requested in the Named Consumers' motion for
reconsideration.  Accordingly, he grants the Named Consumers'
Motion for Reconsideration, but denies the relief requested.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uav5memu from Leagle.com.


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a
Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: QS) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in QS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=13389&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a
Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery
power, battery life, and energy density were significantly
overstated; (2) the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its
technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric
vehicles; and (3) 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.

Shareholders have until March 8, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the QS lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of QuantumScape Corporation. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)
Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021

The complaint alleges that during the class period QuantumScape
Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's purported success related to its
solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were
significantly overstated; (2) the Company is unlikely to be able to
scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power
electric vehicles; and (3) 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in QS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=13394&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action
suit related to the 2018-2019 AMCA Data Security Incident is still
pending.

On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA")
had informed the Company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user
had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30,
2019.

Optum360 provides revenue management services to the Company, and
AMCA provided debt collection services to Optum360. AMCA first
informed the Company of the AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14,
2019. AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g.,
credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information and other personal information (e.g., social security
numbers).

Test results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the
Company's systems or databases were involved in the incident.

AMCA also informed the Company that information pertaining to other
laboratories' customers was also affected. Following announcement
of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA sought protection under
the U.S. bankruptcy laws. The bankruptcy proceeding has been
dismissed.

Numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Data Security Incident. The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases
still pending to, and consolidated them for pre-trial proceedings
in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.

In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding
filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the
Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as
plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory
claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident.

In January 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint; the motion to dismiss is pending.

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

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Toss ERISA Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation, is pending.

In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and other defendants with respect to the Company's 401(k) plan.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of
the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the
expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing
unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan
participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor
performing investments.

In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the
caption In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The Company plans to vigorously defend this matter and has filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.


RECORDQUEST LLC: Dismissal of Smith's Statutory Claim Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAPHNE SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RECORDQUEST, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-2084 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverses the district court's
dismissal of Smith's statutory claim under Section 146.83(3b)(f)
and affirms the dismissal of Smith's unjust enrichment claim.

Federal courts defer to state courts on state-law issues, but not
without reservation.  In the case, Smith claimed RecordQuest
charged excessive fees when satisfying her request for health
records.  So Smith sued, alleging violation of Wisconsin's health
records statute and unjust enrichment.

Daphne Smith suffered an injury from a car accident in May 2014 and
retained an attorney to represent her for a personal injury action.
As part of that representation, Smith authorized her attorney to
obtain her health care information.  The attorney requested Smith's
medical records from Milwaukee Health Services, Inc. ("MHS"), on
three different occasions between September 2014 and March 2015.
But health care records company RecordQuest, not MHS, answered
these requests and charged Smith's attorney (who paid on her
behalf) two different fees -- a $20.96 handling fee and a $8.26
certification fee -- each time.

Smith later brought a class action in state court, which
RecordQuest removed to federal court.  Smith alleged these charged
fees contravened the permissible fee schedule set out in Wis. Stat.
Section 146.83(3f)(b) for health care records requests and resulted
in the unjust enrichment of RecordQuest.  RecordQuest moved to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The district court, primarily by applying agency principles,
dismissed both of Smith's claims.  On Smith's statutory claim, the
district court observed that Section 146.83(3f)(b) imposes a duty
upon only "health care providers."  RecordQuest is not a "health
care provider" but is the agent of a health care provider, MHS.
The district court also rejected Smith's reliance on Wis. Stat.
Sections 146.84(1)(b) and 990.001(9).  It also noted that its
holding would be no different than if Smith sued an MHS billing
clerk (who, like RecordQuest, is not a health care provider).

Smith's unjust enrichment claim failed for the same reasons.  The
district court held that any excessive fees -- or, unjust benefit
-- that Smith allegedly conferred to RecordQuest belonged to MHS as
RecordQuest's principal.  Even if RecordQuest kept the excessive
fees, it would be MHS who conferred the benefit to RecordQuest
because "under its agency agreement with MHS, the fee was
RecordQuest's compensation for rendering records-retrieval services
to MHS."  Additionally, no inequity would result from allowing
RecordQuest to keep the excessive fees as Smith could always sue
MHS directly, according to the district court.

Two other conclusions by the district court merit mention.  That
court declined to consider RecordQuest's argument that the statute
of limitations barred Smith's statutory and unjust enrichment
claims.  And it did not sua sponte grant Smith leave to amend her
complaint because she had not contended she could cure the legal
defects in her claims.

Soon after, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decided a case in which
it expressly disagreed with the district court's analysis of
Smith's statutory claim.  In Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, the
appeals court's view of statutory purpose superseded the statutory
text.  The ChartSwap decision also unduly fears a loophole in the
statutory remedy.

The Seventh Circuit holds that it may disagree with ChartSwap, but
it cannot convincingly say that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would
do the same.  The Court's system of dual sovereignty is well served
by a respectful dialogue between state and federal courts.  But
deference to state courts does not prevent it from expressing its
own views on statelaw issues. It also does not conclude that
certification of the question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the
proper solution.  That court may answer only certified questions
"to which it appears to the certifying court there is no
controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court and the
court of appeals of this state."  The case may not even be
certifiable under Wisconsin law because ChartSwap is controlling
precedent under Wis. Stat. Section 821.01. Cf. Sanchelima Int'l,
Inc., 920 F.3d at 1146 (noting that Seventh Cir. R. 52(a), which
governs certification, relies upon the certification rules of the
forum state).

At this time, ChartSwap guides the Seventh Circuit.  It therefore
reverses the district court's judgment as to Smith's statutory
violation out of deference to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

In addition to her statutory claim, Smith asserts a common-law
claim for unjust enrichment based on her payments to RecordQuest.
The district court dismissed Smith's unjust enrichment claim
primarily because MHS, as principal, would receive any benefit
given to its agent, RecordQuest.

But the Seventh Circuit affirms on different grounds: Smith cannot
resort to a remedy in equity (unjust enrichment) when she has a
remedy at law (Section 146.83(3f)(b)).  Under Section
146.83(3f)(b), the Court finds that Smith has a remedy at law for
any "injustice" that allegedly resulted from excessive payments she
made to RecordQuest. The equitable remedy that Smith seeks in
unjust enrichment is derivative of, and predicated upon, that
statutory claim.  Put differently, Smith unjustly enriched
RecordQuest only if RecordQuest violated Section 146.83(3f)(b).
Allowing a double recovery for these intertwined claims may itself
be inequitable.  The Seventh Circuit therefore affirms the district
court's dismissal of Smith's claim for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, RecordQuest reasserts an argument that the district
court declined to consider: That the two-year statute of
limitations of Wis. Stat. Section 893.93(2)(a) bars both Smith's
statutory claim under Section  146.83(3f)(b) and her unjust
enrichment claim.  For RecordQuest, Smith's statutory and unjust
enrichment claims rise and fall together; both are time barred
because Section 146.83(3f)(b) results in a "statute penalty,"
triggering the two-year limitation period of Section 893.93(2)(a).

The Seventh Circuit holds that Smith's Section 146.83(3f)(b) claim
is a private action for private relief, so it is timely under
Section 893.93(1)(a)'s six-year limitations period.  Smith's unjust
enrichment claim is also timely.  And because Smith did not move
for leave to amend her complaint, the district court committed no
error by declining to grant leave sua sponte.

Based on the foregoing, the Seventh Circuit concludes that case
presents an interpretive question regarding Wisconsin's health
records statutes best resolved by that state's courts.  Out of
deference to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in ChartSwap, it
reverses the dismissal of Smith's statutory claim under Section
146.83(3b)(f) and affirms the dismissal of Smith's unjust
enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yrwe4524 from Leagle.com.


ROLLING HILLS: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
MynewsLA.com reports that Rolling Hills Country Club was sued on
Feb. 23 by a former employee who alleges he was not paid for all
regular and overtime hours worked.

Da'shon Simmons' proposed Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit
alleges nine violations of the state Labor Code and one violation
of the state Business and Professions Code. The suit seeks payment
of allegedly unpaid wages, the imposition of civil penalties and an
award of attorneys' fees.

A representative for the club could not be immediately reached.

The proposed class of plaintiffs consists of all current and former
employees who worked for the Rolling Hills Country Club within four
years of the filing of the suit and who live in California.

Simmons worked at the golf course from March 2018 until February
2019, according to the suit, which does not state what his position
was or why he left his employment there.

In addition to allegedly not being paid for all hours worked,
Simmons maintains he was not compensated for missed meal and rest
breaks or for some business-related expenses. [GN]


ROPER TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's
subsidiary, Vertafore, Inc. continues to defend three putative
class action suits related to Data Breach Incident

Roper's subsidiary, Vertafore, Inc., has been named in three
putative class actions, one in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Allen, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
4:20-cv-4139), one in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado (Masciotra, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
1:20-cv-03603), and one in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Mulvey, et al. v. Vertafore, Inc., Case
3:21-cv-00213-E).

All three cases purport to represent approximately 27.7 million
individuals who held Texas driver's licenses prior to February
2019.

In November 2020, Vertafore announced that as a result of human
error, three data files were inadvertently stored in an unsecured
external storage service that appears to have been accessed without
authorization.

The files, which included driver information for licenses issued
before February 2019, contained Texas driver license numbers, as
well as names, dates of birth, addresses and vehicle registration
histories. The files did not contain any Social Security numbers or
financial account information.

The cases each seek recovery under the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721.

Vertafore is vigorously defending the matters. In addition, the
Texas Attorney General is investigating the data event.

Roper Technologies, Inc., is an American diversified industrial
company that produces engineered products for global niche markets.
The company is headquartered in Sarasota, Florida.

ROSE HOOK: Espinoza Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROSE HOOK, LP dba HOOK BURGER, LLC; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08309 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 3, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failure to
furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by Hook Burger as a kitchen manager from
December 24, 2016 to May 16, 2020 in Burbank, California.

Rose Hook, LP, doing business as Hook Burger, LLC, is a fast food
burger chain with locations throughout Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
         Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
         Vache Thomassian, Esq.
         KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
         230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
         Glendale, CA 92606
         Telephone: (818) 507-8525
         Facsimile: (818) 507-8588

SEABOARD CORP: All Claims in Pork Antitrust Litigation Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation 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 U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, dismissed all claims against
the company in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Pork Antitrust Litigation.

On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed
a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota against several pork processors, including
Seaboard Foods LLC, and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in
the complaint as a data sharing service.

The complaint also named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant.

Additional class action complaints making similar claims on behalf
of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later
filed in the District Court, and three additional actions by
standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)
were filed in or transferred to the District Court.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.

The operative complaints allege, among other things, that beginning
in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork products in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating their output and
limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of
non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and
demand through Agri Stats, Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including
state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection
statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in
the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

On October 16, 2020, the District Court denied defendants' motions
to dismiss the amended complaints, but the District Court later
dismissed all claims against Seaboard Corporation without
prejudice. Seaboard intends to defend these cases vigorously.

Seaboard said, "It is impossible at this stage either to determine
the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome resulting
from these suits, or to reasonably estimate the amount of potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any, resulting from the
suits."

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division
produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins,
and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors,
food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail
outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is
headquartered in Merriam, Kansas.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits Over SPTC Services to Stanford Trust Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and SEI
Private Trust Company (SPTC) continue to defend several class
action suits related to SPTC's services to Stanford Trust Company.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a
defendant.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company.

The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner
in the sale of
"certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so
as to be a "seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of
primary liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be
secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of
deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also
include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and
possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and
conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies.

The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class
action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and
SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing
claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and
permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go
forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern
District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted
SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section
712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2,
2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons
for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford
Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana
between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the
pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members
on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie.

In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern District of Texas
and the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI and SPTC filed
their response to the Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the
stipulated dismissal of all claims in this Complaint predicated on
Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern
District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain.
Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI
and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the
Lillie proceeding. On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings
to the Middle District of Louisiana.

With respect to the Lillie proceeding, on July 9, 2019, the
District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment
Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim and denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance of SEI and SPTC's Motion for
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or New Trial. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial and entered a Final Judgment in
favor of SEI and SPTC on August 15, 2019.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
District Court's dismissal of the Lillie matter. On November 20,
2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Motion in Support of the Notice
of Appeal. On January 17, 2020, SEI and SPTC timely filed their
brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for
appeal. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their
reply brief. The parties are currently waiting for oral argument to
be scheduled.

With respect to the Ahders proceeding, on July 16, 2019, SEI and
SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) to
have the remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed. On January 24,
2020, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary
Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim. On
March 17, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
District Court's dismissal of the Ahders matter. On December 3,
2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
unanimously affirmed the District Court's order granting summary
judgment in favor SEI and the Insurer Defendants in the Adhers
matter.

Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule
for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established.

Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC
indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken
place since.

In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by
the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). The matters were removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and
consolidated. The court then dismissed the action under SLUSA. The
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the
Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals
judgment on February 26, 2014. The matters were remanded to state
court and no material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and
SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of
uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific
theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary
judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Agar Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
22, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
discovey is stayed in the class action suit initiated by Calvin
Agar against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar, a former employee, filed a Class
Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).

On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
against SNI. Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay
on employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which
concern the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contended that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful.

On March 17, 2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted
was subject to mandatory individual arbitration. SNI filed a
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Court overruled the Demurrer
on September 1, 2020. SNI has requested discretionary appellate
review of this decision.

Discovery is currently stayed in the matter pending the outcome of
SNI's application for appellate review.

SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this
issue. SNI intends to continue to vigorously defend its interests,
absent a reasonable resolution.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Kelley Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
22, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Kelley v.
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC; Bryan v. Sensient Natural
Ingredients LLC.

On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint
against Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) in Merced County
Superior Court in California.

Ms. Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a
temporary staffing company. Ms. Kelley has brought suit for
purported violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code on her own behalf, and on
behalf of all current and former California-based hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees of SNI.

Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure
to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses.

SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the
Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only
boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible.

SNI further sought dismissal of one cause of action based upon the
statute of limitations. SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike
certain allegations in the Complaint as improperly pled. The Court
sustained the Demurrer with leave to amend on August 25, 2020.

The Court also granted the Motion to Strike. Ms. Kelley has amended
her original pleading, asserting the same causes of action, to
which SNI has filed a responsive pleading.

The parties have begun discovery.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

SERFACE CARE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serface Care, Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, ADR
Provider v. Serface Care, Inc. doing business as: Myro, Case No.
1:21-cv-01929 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Myro -- https://www.mymyro.com/ -- is a plant-powered
deodorant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SHURTAPE TECHNOLOGIES: Rosario Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ILYANA ROSARIO ,on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHURTAPE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00391
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 18, 2021) is a "collective action" instituted by
the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's practices and policies
of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
as well as a "class action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to
remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff between October 2007 and November
2020 as a manufacturing employee at its Avon, Ohio manufacturing
facility. Other similarly situated employees were employed as
manufacturing employees at the Defendants manufacturing facilities
located in Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida.

The Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees as non-exempt employees. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees on an hourly basis. They
frequently worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked on
average 52 hours per week.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees were only paid for work performed between
their scheduled start and stop times, and were not paid for the
following work performed before and after their scheduled start and
stop times: a) changing into and out of personal protective
equipment such as a mask, steel toe boots, earplugs, gloves and/or
safety glasses; b) getting tools and equipment that were necessary
to perform their manufacturing work such as a zephyr knife,
O-rings, seals, and/or blades; c) walking to their assigned area of
the manufacturing floor; and/or d) performing their manufacturing
work.

The Defendant manufactures various types of tape, school supplies,
and moving supplies at its manufacturing facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

SIGNATURE RETAIL: Court Grants Bid to Remand Gee Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAWN GEE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02627 MCS (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Marck C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted Gee's motion to remand the case to the San
Bernardino County Superior Court.

Plaintiff Gee filed a putative class action complaint in the San
Bernardino County Superior Court.  Gee then filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") that "added one additional representative claim
for recovery of civil penalties pursuant" to the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA").

The FAC contains the following causes of action: (1) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (2)
violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a)
(unpaid meal period premiums); (3) violation of California Labor
Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (4) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1 (unpaid
minimum wages); (5) violation of California Labor Code Sections
201, 202 and 203 (final wages not timely paid); (6) violation of
California Labor Code Section 226(a) (failure to provide accurate
wage statements); (7) violation of California Labor Code Sections
2800 and 2802 (failure to reimburse business expenses); (8)
violation of California Business And Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.; and (9) violation of California Labor Code Section
2699, et seq.

Ms. Gee's first eight causes of action are class allegations while
Gee's ninth cause of action, the PAGA action, is brought "as a
representative action on behalf of herself and similarly Aggrieved
Employees."

In her FAC, Gee alleges she worked for SRS from approximately July
2019 to Jan. 11, 2020.  SRS employed Gee, the Class, and the
Aggrieved Employees as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees.  Gee
alleges that SRS committed multiple California Labor Code
violations.

The FAC alleges the following proposed class: "All current and
former non-exempt employees of any of the Defendants within the
State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding
the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice
of the certified class action is provided to the class."

Defendant SRA removed the case on the basis that removal is proper
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  Gee then
filed a motion to remand the action to the San Bernardino County
Superior Court on the basis that SRS cannot show the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million.

Ms. Gee alleges that SRS relies on PAGA penalties in its Notice of
Removal and that without the PAGA related damages, SRS' own
calculations show there is not $5 million in controversy.
Therefore, Gee argues that SRS has not shown an essential part of
CAFA jurisdiction.  SRS alleges that the FAC alleges more than $5
million in controversy and that PAGA penalties should be included
when determining whether the FAC places $5 million in controversy.

Judge Scarsi agrees with Gee that the CAFA jurisdictional amount of
$5 million is not met in the case.  Gee brought her PAGA claim as a
representative claim, not a class claim.  After removing the PAGA
penalty amounts, SRS' calculation of damages falls under the
required CAFA jurisdictional amount of $5 million.  Therefore, by
SRS' own calculations, the Court does not have CAFA jurisdiction.
The Judge will not rule on Gee's arguments concerning the value of
her various other claims.

Ms. Gee also seeks attorneys' fees for efforts related to her
present motion.

The Judge finds that relevant case law from both the Ninth Circuit
and subsequent district court decisions clearly established that
the Court cannot consider any damages arising from the PAGA claims
to determine if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
However, SRS did exactly that when removing the case.  Without the
PAGA claims, SRS' own alleged amount does not reach the CAFA
jurisdictional amount.  The only case SRS cites in its opposition
is inapplicable to the facts in the case.  As such, the Judge finds
that SRS did not have an "objectively reasonable" basis to remove
the case.  Gee is awarded $5,200 in attorneys' fees.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Scarsi granted Gee's motion to
remand.  The case is thus remanded and Gee is awarded $5,200 in
attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jty6eyjn from Leagle.com.


SISTINA RESTAURANT: Quaglia Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GIUSEPPE QUAGLIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SISTINA RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a SISTINA, and GIUSEPPE
BRUNO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01474 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of similarly
situated workers who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and
specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), seeking from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid overtime wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is an adult who resides in Queens County, New York.
The Plaintiff was a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA
and NYLL.

The Defendants owned and operated an Italian-cuisine restaurant
under the tradename of Sistina, located at 24 E 81 st Street, New
York City. The Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          Angela Kwon, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (718) 971-0326
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com

SMITH & WESSON: Product Liability Negligence Claims Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Love, Esq. -- RLove@blg.com -- Glenn Zakaib, Esq. --
GZakaib@blg.com -- Edona Vila, Esq. -- EVila@blg.com -- and
Samantha Bonanno, Esq. -- SBonanno@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Price v Smith
& Wesson Corp., 2021 ONSC 1114, Justice Perrell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice considered the viability of product
liability claims advanced against a gun manufacturer in an action
commenced by the victims of the Danforth shooting in Toronto and
their families.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent design, manufacture and/or
distribution, public nuisance and strict liability under the rule
in Rylands v. Fletcher, which normally applies to the discharge of
harmful material from real property. Justice Perrell found it was
plain and obvious that the claims of public nuisance and strict
liability could not succeed. The negligent manufacture and
distribution claims suffered the same fate. However, the
plaintiffs' design negligence claims were allowed to proceed.

Background
This action arises out of the Danforth shooting in Toronto on July
22, 2018. The plaintiffs are victims of the shooting and their
families. The defendant, Smith & Wesson, is a gun manufacturer with
its head office in Massachusetts, U.S.

The plaintiffs commenced this class action in December 2019. In
July 2020, Justice Perrell ordered that the certification motion be
heard in two stages. The first stage would determine whether the
plaintiffs met the requirement of showing that their claim
disclosed a cause of action. The Court also heard the defendant's
motion to strike out the claim for failing to disclose a cause of
action, under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. If the
plaintiffs met the cause of action requirement, the second stage
would address the remaining four certification criteria.

According to the defendant manufacturer, the gun used in the
shooting was designed and manufactured for military and police use
and was available for sale in Canada in 2013. In 2015, a
Saskatchewan gun dealer reported the gun later used in the attack
as missing. The gun did not utilize "authorized user" or "smart
gun" technology, which is designed to prevent criminal use of
weapons by unauthorized persons (i.e., through the use of
fingerprint or palm print recognition, dynamic grip recognition, or
voice identification).

While Smith & Wesson had been developing authorized user technology
since at least 1998, in 2005 the United States Congress passed the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shielded Smith &
Wesson (and other manufacturers, dealers, and sellers of firearms
and ammunition) from civil actions resulting from unauthorized or
unlawful misuse of a firearm. As a result, Smith & Wesson did not
adopt authorized user technology or other safety measures.

Plaintiffs' causes of action and the Court's reasoning
The plaintiffs pleaded causes of action in negligence, public
nuisance, and strict liability under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher. However, the crux of the claim was eventually narrowed
down to whether the gun manufacturer owed a duty of care to the
plaintiffs as persons who could be harmed by that weapon, to take
care that the weapon had authorized user technology.

At the outset, Justice Perrell concluded that it was "plain and
obvious" that the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict
liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher were "doomed to
fail." With respect to public nuisance, Justice Perrell reiterated
that such a claim is typically about an activity that unreasonably
interferes with the public's interest in questions of health,
safety, morality, comfort or convenience. Here, manufacturing
weapons was not a public nuisance, although the misuse of those
weapons by others might be. Accordingly, a product manufacturer
cannot be held liable in nuisance for simply distributing a product
in the course of its business that is then misused by others,
causing harm to the plaintiffs.

With respect to strict liability, Justice Perrell reiterated that
the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is a tort that arises out of the
use of land or real property and is not applicable to products
liability claims. Under Canadian law products liability is a matter
of negligence, not strict liability.

With respect to negligence, the plaintiffs argued that their claim
fell within an established category of negligence. In the
alternative, if their claim was novel, it was not plain and obvious
that it failed to satisfy the test for the recognition of a new
duty of care. Accordingly, the claim was not doomed to fail.

Justice Perrell agreed, and found that the plaintiffs' claim fell
within two established categories of negligence claims: dangerous
goods per se and negligent design.

With respect to dangerous goods per se, Justice Perrell reiterated
that a handgun is an article dangerous in itself and those who
"send forth" a handgun owe a duty to take care when other parties
may come within proximity of that handgun. The defendant
manufacturer argued that the proximate cause of the Danforth
shooting was not the alleged negligence, but instead the criminal
acts of the shooter. Justice Perrell did not accept this argument.
His Honour pointed out that the difficulty with such an argument is
that there was a precaution that Smith & Wesson could have taken to
prevent the shooting. It could have incorporated authorized user
technology, but did not do so.

With respect to the negligent design claim, Justice Perrell agreed
with Smith & Wesson's argument that the claims for negligent
manufacture and distribution were technically deficient because the
plaintiffs had not pled the material facts necessary to establish
negligence in manufacturing or distributing the gun. Accordingly,
Justice Perrell focused solely on the negligent design claim.

Justice Perrell stated that the underlying argument in a negligent
design action is that a manufacturer has a duty to not design a
product negligently, because the manufacturer should and can be
held responsible for the choices it makes that affects the safety
of the product.

Therefore, a manufacturer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to
reduce any risk to life and limb that may be inherent in its
design. Whether the manufacturer breaches this duty is determined
by a risk-utility analysis that measures whether the utility of the
chosen design outweighs the foreseeable risks associated with the
chosen design.

Smith & Wesson argued that the weapon was manufactured as a
military and police weapon and, from a police officer's
perspective, the introduction of authorized user technology could
actually present as a danger to the police officer. Therefore, not
introducing the technology could not be said to be a design
defect.

Justice Perrell viewed this as an argument about the merits rather
than the legal viability of the plaintiffs' negligence cause of
action. His Honour reiterated that the duty of design extends
beyond the police officers and soldiers for whom the weapon was
designed. Others might come within the range of foreseeability and
proximity, and so it might be fair to impose liability on the
manufacturer. Accordingly, Justice Perrell was not satisfied that
the negligent design allegation was doomed to fail.

Because Justice Perrell was satisfied that the plaintiffs' claims
fell within established categories of duty of care, His Honour did
not undertake a novel duty of care analysis.

Ultimately, the Court found that the cause of action criterion for
certification was satisfied with respect to the design negligence
claims.

Manufacturers beware
This case presents a cautionary tale for manufacturers. The
decision not to use of state-of-the-art technology to make products
as safe as possible may expose manufacturers to product liability
claims if those products cause injury or death. Whether such
allegations are sufficient to ground liability will depend on how a
court weighs the utility of the chosen design against the
foreseeable risks presented by such a choice. At this time, it is
not known whether Smith & Wesson will appeal this decision. [GN]


SNICKERS INC: Improperly Pays Restaurant Servers, Grzes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA GRZES and AGNIESZKA SOEOLEWSKA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNICKERS INC. and
JOHN FRANGIAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01215 (N.D. Ill., March
3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs at
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay and deducting their
earned tips.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers or bar
tenders.

Snickers, Inc. is an operator of a restaurant/bar in River North in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         John C. Ireland, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
         636 Spruce Street
         South Elgin, IL 60177
         Telephone: (630) 464-9675
         Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
         E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Klein Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Avigdor Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00866 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021) is
a class action suit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on
behalf of a class of New York consumers seeking damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on October 14, 2020, the Defendant sent
the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged debt owed
to Time Warner Cable. The Letter attempts to collect a balance of
$59.00 and labels the charge as an "Equipment Cost." The Plaintiff
contends that if he would return the equipment which forms the
basis of the charge, the balanced would be reduced significantly
due to a credit for the returned equipment or possibly be reduced
to nothing. The Defendant's letter makes no mention at all of this
possibility. It is deceptive to list a charge for equipment and not
to make any mention of the possibility of reducing the charge
significantly (or completely) by simply returning the equipment,
the suit adds.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings, and resides at 180 Nostrand Ave, Apt. 2, Brooklyn, New York.


Defendant Southwest is a "debt collector." The Defendant is a
company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly
engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to
collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com

SP PLUS: Moleon Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frantz Moleon on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated
former and current employees v. Fred Alston as President of Garage
Employees Local 272 affil'd International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
SP Plus Corporation, Margarita Lopez, Local 272 John Doe 1, Kent
Security Of New York, Inc. and Ronald Manning, Case No.
1:21-cv-01398 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2021) alleges that Local 272
breached its duty of fair representation pursuant to 29 USC section
185 and breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to ERISA 404 and 502.

The Plaintiff contends that he was discharged from his employment
with SP Plus, Corp. on October 8, 2020. SP Corp based his discharge
on a false statement by Kent Security and its employee Ronald
Manning on an incident report dated on October 1, 2020 that he
engaged in "vandalism" or vandalized his worksite. KS Corp.,
Manning repeated these defamatory per se statements to SP Corp.
that caused his discharge. SP Corp, KS Corp and Manning repeated
these defamatory per se statements to Local 272 including but not
limited to "vandalism," "gross misconduct," and "unprofessional
behavior." Local 272 repeated these defamatory statements to other
union employees that caused the union's bad faith denial of his
meritorious discharge grievance and arbitration. All Defendants'
defamatory per se statements and conduct caused him loss of wages,
health welfare and pension benefits, tremendous stress leading to
medically diagnosed high blood pressure, loss of spousal consortium
and were so outrageous that they inflicted emotional distress on
him, the Plaintiff adds.

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC section 201 et
seq., the statute of limitations is two years from the date of the
employer's wrongful conduct. At various times throughout 2020, the
Defendant SP Corp, unlawfully failed to pay to Plaintiff Moleon,
his earned wages and his sick and vacation wages. At various times
during 2020, the Defendant SP Corp. unlawfully removed the
Plaintiff Moleon from payroll that caused the loss of contributions
to and benefits under the subject health welfare and pension
plan(s). The Plaintiffs' action arising under ERISA section 510, 29
section 1140 (a) should be afforded a six year statute of
limitations as it makes a claim under ERISA 502, 510's enforcement
provision, the suit alleges.

Plaintiff Moleon is a resident of the state of New Jersey. He
commuted by public transportation and worked in New York City. Mr.
Moleon commenced his employment with SP Plus as a garage attendant
employee from October 27, 2005 through the date of his wrongful
discharge on October 8, 2020. He worked at SP Corp's various New
York City locations for 15 years without any breaks in service, in
good standing and fully vested in his pension benefits. He was a
member of the bargaining unit of garage attendant employees
represented by Local 272 since on or about December 2005. Since
December 2005, Frantz Moleon was a participant of Local 272 health
welfare and pension plan.

SP Plus provides professional parking management, ground
transportation, remote baggage check-in and handling, facility
maintenance, and security. The Defendant Local 272 is a labor
organization affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
with its principal business office located at 220 E. 23rd Street,
New York City Local 272 is a party to a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) with the employer, SP Corp. Local 272 has a
standing duty to fairly represent, without hostility or bias toward
any member of the bargaining unit respecting the terms and
conditions of their employment with SP Corp garages in New York
City. Local 272 is an ERISA fiduciary for the bargaining unit
members' health welfare and pension plan(s).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Ghim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN GHIM
          244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1434
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (917) 549-5408
          E-mail: SGHIMESQ@GMAIL.COM

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: McNeal's Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER MCNEAL, SR., et al., Petitioners v.
SHERIFF RICHARD WATSON, Respondent, Case No. 3:21-CV-139-NJR (S.D.
Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
2254.

Petitioner McNeal, along with 29 other inmates of the St. Clair
County Jail, bring the habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2254.  The Petitioners seek to initiate a class action with
McNeal as their class representative and state they are suffering
cruel and unusual punishment.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United
States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district judge, "if it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

Judge Rosenstengel holds that the petition must be dismissed.  She
explains that a petition seeking habeas corpus relief is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 when a petitioner is
challenging the fact or duration of confinement, and if he seeks
immediate or speedier release.  Habeas relief may be granted where
the prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.  In contrast, a civil rights
action is the proper vehicle for a challenge to the conditions of a
prisoner's confinement, including an alleged violation of a
prisoner's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.

The Petitioners are not challenging the fact or duration of their
confinement, and the relief they seek would not affect the duration
of their confinement.  For state prisoners like the Petitioners,
the Judge holds that the proper vehicle for a claim such as this is
an action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 -- not a habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.

Without making any decision on the merits of Petitioners' claim,
the Judge must dismiss the habeas petition because it fails to
state a claim for habeas relief.  She cannot simply convert the
Section 2254 petition into a Section 1983 complaint.

As directed by the Seventh Circuit in Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d
382, 389 (7th Cir. 2005), 408 F.3d at 389-390, the Judge informed
the Petitioners of the following:

     1. The Court is not making any decision on the merits of their
claim and is not deciding whether the facts alleged in the petition
would state a cause of action under Section 1983.

     2. The Petitioners may refile their claim under the proper
legal label, subject to the normal rules such as those prohibiting
frivolous lawsuits and requiring payment of a filing fee.  That
complaint would again be subject to preliminary review.

     3. If the Petitioners refile their claim as a Section 1983
action, they may be assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C.A. Section
1915(g) if that action is dismissed because it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

For these reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is dismissed without prejudice.  All
other pending motions are denied as moot.

Because the action was brought under the wrong statute, the Judge
finds that the matter presents special circumstances, and her
dismissal Order should be final and appealable.  Yet, because the
Petitioners have no basis for a determination that her decision is
debatable or incorrect, the Petitioners have not made "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," and a
certificate of appealability will not be issued.

The Judge directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.

If the Petitioners wish to appeal the dismissal of the action, the
notice of appeal must be filed with the Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment.  A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
("IFP") must set forth the issues the Petitioners plan to present
on appeal.  If the Petitioners do choose to appeal and are allowed
to proceed IFP, they will be liable for a portion of the $505
appellate filing fee (the amount to be determined based on their
prison trust fund account records for the past six months)
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.  A proper and timely
motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
toll the 30-day appeal deadline. A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed
no more than 28 days after the entry of the judgment, and the
28-day deadline cannot be extended.  Other motions, including a
Rule 60 motion for relief from a final judgment, do not toll the
deadline for an appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mva84jhm from Leagle.com.


STAPLES CONTRACT: Faces Cisneros Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 21STCV06574 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2021) is
an enforcement action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, California Labor Code to recover civil
penalties and any other available relief on behalf of Plaintiff,
the State of California, and former and current non-exempt
employees of the Defendant.

This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
employees of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the employment policies, practices and
procedures are generally described as follows: failure to adopt
standards that minimize excessive indoor heat in violation of
California Labor Code; and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.

As a direct result of the alleged wage and hour violations, the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees have suffered, and continue
to suffer substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of
wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorneys'
fees in seeking to compel the Defendants to fully perform its
obligations under state law.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles County, in the State of
California. He was employed by the Defendant, from July 2019 until
his date of termination on November 15, 2019 as employed as an
'Associate' and drove a forklift.

Staples Contract manufactures industrial machinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.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

STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Auto Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
KTNV reports that multiple class-action lawsuits have been filed in
Clark County District Court by the Las Vegas law firm Eglet Adams
and Reno trial lawyer Matthew L. Sharp, seeking class-wide relief
for the Defendant insurance companies' failure to provide and
charge a fair and appropriate insurance premium and failure to
provide premium reductions to its Nevada automobile insurance
policyholders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The class-action lawsuits have been filed against State Farm, USAA,
Geico, Acuity, Liberty Mutual, Farmers, Progressive, Travelers,
Nationwide, and Allstate.

The class-action lawsuits have been filed against State Farm, USAA,
Geico, Acuity, Liberty Mutual, Farmers, Progressive, Travelers,
Nationwide, and Allstate.

The suits allege that Nevadans faced substantial life changes
beginning on March 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which
included driving less frequently and driving shorter distances.
This resulted in less traffic, fewer automobile accidents, and a
dramatic reduction in automobile insurance claims. The lawsuit
further alleges that this significant drop in driving, collisions,
and automobile insurance claims will continue for the foreseeable
future and for the duration of the pandemic.

"A lot of people, companies, and employees are continuing to work
remotely. They're not going to the grocery store. They're having
everything delivered. They're not going out to dinner. They're not
going to sports events or concerts or anything like that," said
Robert Eglet, a lawyer at the Law Office of Eglet Adams in Las
Vegas. "Certainly during the lockdowns, but even continuing after
the lockdowns in Nevada, as well as other states, people are
driving significantly less. They're just not driving as much."

The class-action lawsuits claim that the insurance providers
charged their insureds excessive premiums as a result of the
providers' failure to accurately calculate the cost of premiums
based on their insureds' decreased driving routines and the
significantly reduced quantity of automobile accident claims due to
the pandemic. Under Nevada Law, insurance providers may not charge
excessive premiums.

The lawsuits further allege that the insurance providers provided
paltry credits and refunds to their insureds that are inadequate
given the excessive premiums that Nevadans have been paying during
the pandemic.

"Under Nevada law, the insurance companies are regulated here and
they're not permitted under statutory law to charge an insurance
premium that is excessive. As a result of COVID and restrictions,
the frequency and severity of claims incurred by the insurance
companies has dramatically reduced and are significantly less than
what was anticipated when the premium was charged. I've been
waiting for these insurance companies all year to do something. And
they've made these token discounts, anywhere from a one-time $50
payment to as much as 15%-20% for only two months, which is
woefully insufficient to account for the significant drop in
claims," said Eglet.

The lawsuits bring forth five causes of action including
Declaratory Relief Pursuant to NRS 30.040, Breach of Contract,
Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contract),
Bad Faith, and Violation of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

The lawsuits seek compensatory and punitive damages, all attorney
fees and costs, and any further relief that the Court deems just
and appropriate.

13 Action News reached out the various insurance companies for
their responses.

USAA sent the following:
We are currently reviewing the lawsuit. On three occasions in 2020,
USAA returned dividends totaling $1.07 billion to all auto
insurance policy holders due to fewer drivers on the road because
of the ongoing pandemic.

Nationwide sent this statement:
We are aware of the complaint and prepared to vigorously defend our
position in court.

Statement from State Farm:
The filing of a lawsuit does not substantiate the allegations
within the complaint. We've recently learned about the filing, and
it is premature to comment at this time.

Statement from Allstate:
Allstate was the first insurer to respond to decreasing auto
accidents in March by providing customers with Shelter-in-Place
Paybacks of nearly $1 billion, which helped lead the insurance
industry to provide widespread financial relief to drivers. Since
then we have continued to support our customers with broad
reductions in auto insurance rates that will continue beyond the
pandemic.

Progressive sent this statement:
While we won't comment on pending litigation, we're sensitive to
COVID-19's impact on our customers, employees, agents and
communities, and we've worked hard to assist them in meaningful
ways throughout the pandemic. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've
provided our customers over $1.1B in premium credits and rate
relief, and have also reduced rates by more than $800M countrywide
on an annualized basis. This includes rate reductions in Nevada
last summer that translate to more than $25M in annualized savings
for Nevada drivers.

Liberty Mutual Insurance responded that they do not publicly
comment on matters of litigation.

Eglet says, even though some companies, like Allstate, have given
back nearly a billion dollars to customers, it's a small fraction
of the profit they've made during the pandemic, and not enough to
help their struggling customers.

"They're making record profits off of this and they're making
record profits off of the backs of their own customers, who many,
if not most of them, are suffering financially and struggling
during COVID. And yet, they're being required to pay the same
amount for their insurance premiums they did pre-covid, with
significantly less driving and less claims," said Eglet.

Eglet says the companies he's suing represent about 90% of Nevada's
drivers. So, if you're interested in joining these class action
lawsuits, he recommends you send his law firm an email or give them
a call at (702) 450-5400. [GN]


STURM RUGER: 6th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Primus Group Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, 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 Sixth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal in Primus Group LLC v. Smith and
Wesson, et al.

Primus Group LLC v. Smith and Wesson, et al. is a putative class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on August 8, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' lawful sale of modern
sporting rifles violates the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act and seeks a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
permanent injunction.

On August 20, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's request for a TRO.


On September 3, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On September 16, 2019,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On October 9, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15, 2019.

The parties fully briefed the appeal and the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit entered an order affirming the dismissal on
February 8, 2021.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells firearms under the Ruger name and
trademark in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Firearms and Castings. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was founded in
1949 and is based in Southport, Connecticut.

SUNRISE GLOBAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Global
Logistics, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Global
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01949 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Sunrise Logistics -- https://www.sunriselogisticsinc.com/ -- is a
produce supply chain champion who partners with grower-shippers,
importers, distributors, and retailers to provide third-party
logistics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNSET VALET PARKING: Dattus Slams Retalliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leoncio V. Dattus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunset Valet Parking, Inc. and Eduardo
Perez Arrufat, individually, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-20540 (S.D.
Fla., February 9, 2021), seeks to recover money damages for
retaliation and unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Sunset Valet Parking provides security services to businesses,
residential communities, institutions and construction sites where
Dattus was employed as a non-exempted full-time, hourly-paid,
security guard and doorman. Dattus claims to have worked more than
forty hours during one or more weeks without being properly
compensated. He also claims to be terminated for complaining about
this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES: Keech Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Keech, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Surgical Care Affiliates LLC, SCAI Holdings
LLC, Company A and Company B (John Doe Companies), Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-06190 (N.D. Ill., February 10, 2021), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for unlawful restraint of competition in the
market for the services of skilled professionals in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC and its co-conspirators are the
largest operators of outpatient medical care centers in the United
States. They compete with one another to hire and retain employees
nationwide. Keech alleges that Defendants agreed not to hire one
another's employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurel G. Bellows, Esq.
      THE BELLOWS LAW GROUP, P.C.
      209 S. LaSalle St., Suite 800
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 332-3340
      Email: lbellows@bellowslaw.com

             - and -

      Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
      Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
      Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
      Yaman Salahi, Esq.
      Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: dharvey@lchb.com
             ndesai@lchb.com
             lchan@lchb.com
             ysalahi@lchb.com
             mlamy@lchb.com

             - and -

      Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
      TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
      613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 237-1775
      Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
      Email: sam@turkestrauss.com

             - and -

      Jessica A. Moldovan, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      Email: jmoldovan@lchb.com

             - and -

      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      PARONICH LAW, P.C.
      350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Tel: (617) 485-0018
      Fax: (508) 318-8100
      Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


SWAN SURFACES: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Barton BIPA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANN BARTON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWAN SURFACES, LLC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-499-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted
Swan's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On May 29, 2000, Plaintiff Barton, former employee of Swan,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a
two-count Class Action Complaint against Swan for alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA"), codified
at 740 ILCS Section 14/1, et seq.

Plaintiff Barton was employed by Swan from Dec. 9, 2019 until Jan.
8, 2020.  She was an hourly employee in the company's molding
department at the Centralia manufacturing facility.  On Dec. 4,
2019, prior to her first day of work, Barton executed the document
entitled "Appendix "A" -- Dues Check-Off Authorization Form.  She
clocked in and out of work using her fingerprints.

During the period that Swan collected and used Barton's
fingerprints, she was a member of the Laborers' International Union
of North America, Local 1197.  The collective bargaining agreement
("CBA") was in effect during the entirety of Barton's employment
with Swan.  The collective bargaining agreement contained a
management rights clause.  The CBA also included a grievance
procedure.

Ms. Barton seeks to represent a class of "all individuals who,
while residing in the State of Illinois, had their fingerprints
collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained and/or stored by
Swan."

Specifically, Barton alleges that Swan violated BIPA for: (1)
failing to institute, maintain, and adhere to publicly available
retention schedule in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a); and (2)
failing to obtain informed written consent and release before
obtaining biometric identifiers of information.

On July 31, 2020, Swan filed its motion to dismiss, pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with
supporting memorandum of law.  It attached as exhibits to its
memorandum of law the following three documents: (1) the
declaration of Sandy L. Moore, vice president of human resources
for Swan; (2) a copy of the CBA between the Union and The Swan
Corporation, effective Aug. 1, 2019 through July 31, 20241; and,
(3) Appendix "A", which is a copy of the dues check-off
authorization form executed by Barton on Dec. 4, 2019.

Swan asserts two major arguments for dismissal. First, that
Barton's claims are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA, and
second, that Barton's claims must be dismissed because she failed
to exhaust her remedies under the collective bargaining agreement.
Swan also contends that the Union was Barton's "legally authorized
representative" with respect to claims involving biometric
timekeeping.

On Sept. 17, 2020, Barton filed her memorandum of law in opposition
to motion to dismiss.  She raises several arguments as to why her
complaint should not be dismissed, including: exceptions to
preemption; rights not preempted; violation of Section 15(a)'s
destruction duty; futility of invoking grievance procedure and
silence in CBA on use of biometric timekeeping systems.

On Sept. 30, 2020, Swan filed its reply in support of its motion to
dismiss.  It attempts to counter Barton's arguments and again
argues that the BIPA claims are preempted, that the CBA is
applicable and that there is binding authority in the Seventh
Circuit on the issue.

Swan argues that Barton's claims are preempted by Section 301 and
moves the Court to dismiss her claims based on this rationale.  In
response, Barton counters that the legislature enacted BIPA to
address security concerns and intended for it to have substantial
force.  She attempts to rely upon Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic
Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988), and should that fail, attempts to
distinguish Miller v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 926 F.3d 898 (7th
Cir. 2019).

However, Judge McGlynn holds that both arguments fall short.
Because Swan attached the CBA and the declaration of Sandy Moore,
the Court can look beyond the complaint can view any competent
proof submitted by the parties to determine if the Plaintiff has
established jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, citing
Meridian Sec. Inc. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F3d. 536 (7th Cir. 2006).

The Judge notes that although Miller involved the RLA, not the
LMRA, the Supreme Court has held that the RLA preemption standard
is virtually identical to the pre-emption standard the Court
employs in cases involving Section 301 of the LMRA, citing Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 260 (1994).  Furthermore,
the Seventh Circuit recently suggested that its holding in Miller
applied to an analogous fact pattern under the LMRA. Fox, 980 F.3d
1146.

Although not binding on the Court, the sister district to the north
has had several occasions to review BIPA claims, and in each has
determined that they are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA --
Fernandez v. Kerry, Inc., 2020 WL 7027587 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30,
2020); Williams v. Jackson Park SLF, LLC, 2020 WL 5702294 (N.D.
Ill. Sept. 24, 2020); Gray v. Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr., Inc.,
2020 WL 1445608 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2020); Peatry v. Bimbo Bakeries
USA, Inc., 2020 WL 919202 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2020).  In all four
cases, the unionized employee/plaintiff alleged, on behalf of
themselves and classes of similarly situated individuals, that the
employer/defendants violated BIPA through collection, storage and
use of biometric information, and in all four cases the Northern
District has aligned with Miller.  Therefore, Barton's claims are
preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA and must be dismissed.

In further support of finding that BIPA is preempted by Section
301, the Judge notes that courts also looked at the language
contained in the management rights clauses in the respective CBAs
and found them to be very similar, citing Fernandez, 2020 WL
7027587; Williams, 2020 WL 5702294; Gray, 2020 WL 1445608; and
Peatry, 2020 WL 919202.  As such, it is necessary to interpret the
management-rights clause at issue to determine whether the union
consented to the use of the time clocks on behalf its' collective
members.

The Judge finds that although the Miller CBA did not expressly
mention biometric data nor did it anticipate the use of biometric
data, the Seventh Circuit found that whether its management right
clause gave rise to consent regarding biometric data was for an
adjustment board, not for a court to determine.  In the instant
case, biometric data may have been anticipated in that it was
specifically mentioned in the CBA management rights clause, and
consequently, like Miller, it is an issue for review and
interpretation, but by an arbitral board and not the court system.

Barton contends that Lingle, not Miller, controls in the case;
however, her argument is not persuasive.  The Judge holds that the
Court cannot separate the BIPA claims without looking at the CBA.
Because interpretation of the CBA is essential to the case and
because they are so intertwined, Barton's claims are preempted.

Swan's second argument is that Barton did not exhaust her remedies
under the CBA prior to filing her complaint.  In response, Barton
counters that her failure to invoke the CBA's grievance procedure
is not enough for dismissal.  She further clams that any failure to
invoke the grievance procedure should be excused because any
attempt would have been futile.

The Judge notes that Swan is correct that, as a general matter,
exhaustion of remedies is required; however, there are exceptions.
He says an employee can be excused from a CBA's exhaustion
requirement if: (1) resorting to the grievance procedure would be
futile; (2) the employer, through its conduct repudiated the
grievance procedure itself; or (3) the union breached its duty of
fair representation.  Futility is a recognized exception to the
exhaustion requirement.  But, an employee's speculation that it
would be futile to file a grievance is insufficient to excuse the
employee's failure to exhaust.  Instead, the employee must put the
grievance procedure to the test and show that he/she tried to
exhaust the contractual remedies and that further attempts to
pursue a grievance would have been futile.  Because Barton's claim
of futility is nothing more than a mere, unsubstantiated assertion,
failure to exhaust the grievance procedure is not excused.

For the reasons he set forth, and in reliance on the binding
precedent in Miller, Judge McGlynn granted Swan's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Barton's class action
complaint is dismissed without prejudice and any potential motion
for class certification is moot at this time.

Although the Judge is reticent to do so, Barton is granted until
March 5, 2021 to file an amended complaint correcting the
jurisdictional deficiencies identified, if she can do so consistent
with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  If no
amended complaint is filed by April 5, 2021, the Judge will enter
final judgment and close the case.  If Barton files an amended
complaint, Swan will have 30 days from that date to file a
responsive pleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ubaxmvns from Leagle.com.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-003922 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
February 25, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
9685 on or about February 23, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant did not obtain his prior express consent to receive such
text message that was allegedly transmitted by the Defendant via an
automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) as the generic and
impersonal nature of the text message demonstrates it.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the
Class, demands an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using
an ATDS to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to
cellular telephones without the prior express consent of the called
party, and an award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled
statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable
and just.

Synchrony Financial offers financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 628-5793
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


T.A. REMAINDER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Nisbett Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. T.A. REMAINDER COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01465-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, www.tanthony.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant denies full and equal
access to its Website, and asserts claims under the Americans With
Disabilities Act), the New York State Human Rights Law, and New
York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant.

Plaintiff Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause the
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Mr. Nisbett is a resident of the Bronx, New York, Bronx County. As
a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, he is a member of a
protected class of individuals under Title III of the ADA.

The Defendant is a retailer of luggage, wallets and accessories and
gifts for men and women. The Defendant operates a store at 107 East
57th Street, New York. At this store and online, customers can
purchase items such as duffle bags, totes, wallets, briefcases,
photo albums, picture frames, jewelry boxes and similar items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com

TARA MATERIALS: Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARTIN ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARA MATERIALS, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00001473-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00373-AJB-AHG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Tara Materials, Inc. is a company that manufactures and sells
textile products, headquartered in Lawrenceville, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
         Bret Martin, Esq.
         Benjamin P. Carney, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858) 597-9600
         Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
         E-mail: dmoore@fisherphillips.com
                 bmartin@fisherphillips.com
                 bcarney@fisherphillips.com

TEMP-TATIONS LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Temp-tations, LLC.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Temp-tations, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01179-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021).

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

Temp-tations -- https://temp-tations.com/ -- offers all-purpose,
all-temperature, handcrafted kitchenware.[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


TRIP CONSULTANTS: Workers Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamil Faied and Ali Alawai, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trip Consultants USA, Inc. and
Francois Naaman, Defendant, Case 21-cv-00697 (E.D. N.Y., February
9, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Trip Consultants conducts traffic surveys and provides traffic data
to various governmental agencies including, but not limited to, the
New York State Department of Transportation, as well as private
entities. Plaintiffs worked as manual laborers for Trip
Consultants. They regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being paid overtime and claim to be denied wage statements.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     825 Veterans Highway, Ste. B
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Tel. (631) 257-5588
     Email: promero@romerolawny.com


TULSA COUNTY, OK: Feltz's 2nd Bid to Amend Complaint Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD FELTZ, et al., on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF TULSA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-0298-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), Magistrate Judge Jodi F. Jayne of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Second
        Motion to Amend the Complaint; and

   (ii) denied as moot Ashton Dennis' Motion to Intervene.

The remaining named Plaintiff is Richard Feltz.  Currently, the
named Defendants are Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County;
Vic Regalaldo, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity;
William Lafortune, in his official capacity as Tulsa County
District Court Judge; and current and former Tulsa County Special
Judges, in their official capacities, who were special judges at
the time the Complaint was filed in June 2018 ("Special Judges")
("State Judges").

Mr. Feltz was allegedly subjected to unconstitutional bail-setting
procedures in Tulsa County District Court in June 2018.  He seeks
certification of a class defined as "all people who are or will be
detained in the Tulsa County Jail because they are unable to pay a
secured financial condition of release."

Based on prior rulings in the case, Feltz's remaining claims are:
(1) Presiding Judge, Sheriff, and County violate his equal
protection and due process rights against wealth-based detention by
jailing him because he cannot afford a monetary payment ("count
1"); and (2) all the Defendants violate his right to pretrial
liberty by jailing him without providing procedural due process
("count 2"). Feltz seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory
relief against Presiding Judge, Sheriff, and County.  Feltz seeks
only prospective declaratory relief against Special Judges.

After the case was filed, the "bond docket" was created in October
2018.  Creation of the bond docket altered the challenged policies
and procedures.  In August 2019, Local Criminal Rule 2 was passed,
which contains the current procedures.  The FAC does not reflect
these changes, and there is currently no named plaintiff who
appeared on the bond docket created in October 2018.

With respect to scheduling, the district judge set a schedule with
deadlines for joinder of parties, written discovery, deposition
discovery, and dispositive motions. The deadline for joinder of
additional parties expired July 15, 2019 and has not been extended.
After resolution of discovery disputes and a motion for
preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to a new scheduling
order governing combined class certification and merits discovery,
which set deadlines for fact discovery, expert discovery, and
dispositive motions.

The parties have engaged in discovery regarding relevant policies
and procedures in place from June 2018 to the present, including
written and deposition discovery.  State Judges filed two pending
Rule 12(b)(1) motions raising factual challenges to subject matter
jurisdiction.

According to the proposed Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), on Dec.
16, 2020, proposed Plaintiff Dennis was jailed after a bond hearing
before Special Judge Tanya Wilson.  On Dec. 20, 2020, approximately
one month prior to the fact discovery deadline of Jan. 25, 2021,
Feltz filed the current motion to amend under Rule 15(a).  Dennis
filed the current motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a) and (b).

Mr. Feltz seeks to amend the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2) or Rule 15(d), for the purposes of: (1) adding
Dennis as a named Plaintiff and class representative; and (2)
updating factual allegations.  Feltz submitted a redlined version
of the SAC, showing all proposed changes.  State Judges filed an
objection to amendment, arguing undue delay, undue prejudice, and
futility.

Magistrate Judge Jayne holds that amendment serves the interest of
justice.  While Feltz maintains his claims are not moot (as he has
throughout the case), he now desires to add a plaintiff who has
been subjected to the current procedures and update his allegations
to reflect these procedures.  This is a permissible basis for
adding named plaintiffs in putative class actions prior to or
during the class certification process.  Amendment avoids injustice
to the putative class members who were allegedly unlawfully
detained based on the current policies.

The Judge also holds that the State Judges will not suffer undue
prejudice from the permitted amendments.  The proposed SAC contains
new factual allegations regarding creation of the bond docket, and
the current procedures to which Dennis was subjected in December
2020.  The proposed SAC shifts wording in key respects to reflect
policy changes after the case was filed, such as alleging that
putative class members are not offered "constitutional" process,
rather than alleging putative class members are not offered "any"
process.  The State Judges have been on notice of the need to
defend and litigate the constitutionality of current policies based
on Feltz's mootness defense.  They have not stated they will need
to pursue additional discovery based on amendment.  The Judge finds
no undue prejudice.

With respect to delay, Feltz argues that: (1) the challenged
policies have evolved post-suit, and State Judges first filed their
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on mootness grounds on April 2,
2020; and (2) while Feltz has consistently maintained (and still
maintains) that his claims are not moot, he now seeks to avoid
waste of a "substantial amount of litigation effort that would be
lost in the unlikely event that the Court adopts the State Judge's
mootness arguments."

Exercising its discretion over deadlines and amendment of
pleadings, the Judge: (1) finds good cause for extending the
amendment deadline under Rule 16(b)(4), and (2) finds that Feltz's
delay in seeking amendment does not warrant denial of amendment,
considering all Rule 15(a)(2) considerations.  She also finds that
some original delay was reasonable while policies evolved postsuit,
and finds that the remaining delay does not outweigh other Rule
15(a)(2) factors favoring amendment.  Specifically, there is no
undue prejudice to the State Judges, and the interests of justice
to putative class members and judicial economy weigh strongly in
favor of allowing amendment.

Although she permits amendment, the Judge finds that one allegation
in the proposed SAC is untimely and unduly prejudicial.
Specifically, the proposed SAC alleges that Presiding Judge has
prepared and provided no formal, regular training or evaluation for
Special Judges overseeing the bond docket.  The Judge finds that
proposed paragraph 91 is an attempt by Feltz to assert a new claim
or theory of liability based on Presiding Judge's actions of
failing to train Special Judges.  It is untimely and unduly
prejudicial, because the State Judges were not on adequate notice
they were defending a "failure to train" claim during the discovery
process.

Further, as the parties' futility arguments indicate, Feltz intends
to treat this as an independent "claim" for relief that would be
subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or dispositive motion.  It is
unduly prejudicial to force the State Judges to newly defend this
claim.  The Judge's ruling does not intend to limit evidence that
may be presented regarding how the Special Judges conduct the bond
docket, including any training they did or did not receive.

Finally, the State Judges appear to assert five futility arguments:
(1) the proposed SAC asserts previously dismissed claims; (2) the
proposed SAC names only "Presiding Judge" and "Special Judges"
rather than individual names of judges, which contravenes Ex Parte
Young; (3) Younger abstention applies; (4) neither Feltz nor Dennis
have a live case or controversy; and (5) any "failure to train"
claim fails to state a claim for relief.

The Judge (i) will not permit Feltz to assert any previously
dismissed claims or related prayers for relief, and these will be
excluded from the SAC; (ii) agrees with the State Judges that
actual state officials must be named for purposes of the Ex Parte
Young doctrine, rather than official titles such as "Presiding
Judge"; (iii) the same Younger analysis applies to a Rule 12(b)(6)
challenge to the SAC; (iv) cannot conclude that Feltz's claim fails
a Rule 12(b)(6) "mootness" analysis; and (v) finds the proposed
amendment untimely and unduly prejudicial, and it will not be
permitted.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Jayne granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend the Complaint as set
forth.  She denied as moot Dennis' Motion to Intervene.

By March 3, 2021, Feltz may file a Second Amended Complaint in the
form attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion to amend, with the
following modifications:

      a. Feltz will individually name William LaFortune, in his
official capacity as Presiding Judge of the District Court for
Tulsa County;

      b. Feltz will individually name all Special Judges who
conduct the bond docket on rotation, in their official capacities
as Special Judges of the District Court for Tulsa County;

      c. Feltz will exclude proposed paragraph 91; and

      d. Feltz will exclude previously dismissed claims and related
prayers for relief.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena and State
Judges' Motion for Protective Order are set for telephone
conference on March 10, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.  The parties should
also be prepared to discuss deadlines for filing new class
certification briefing and a proposed date for a class
certification hearing, in relation to the current scheduling
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mkupc from Leagle.com.


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Wiggins Sues Over Dove's Misleading Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Wiggins and Rebecca Torres, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., dba
DOVE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01964 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021), is brought
on behalf of a national class of consumers who purchased Dove's
body care products that were falsely and misleadingly marketed as
"hypoallergenic" (some of which were also falsely and misleadingly
marketed as "tear-free").

Since its founding, Dove has based its brand as being a trustworthy
expert in skin care and baby care, offering information and advice
to consumers desiring safe products for sensitive skin. Seeking to
capture the growing market for hypoallergenic and tear-free
products, Dove prominently labels many of its products as
"hypoallergenic," and adds to baby washes and shampoos an
additional "tear-free" claim. However, despite its marketing
scheme, Dove's products are chock-full of a significant array and
substantial amount of known skin sensitizers (allergens), agents
that cause serious skin damage, chemicals that cause serious eye
damage lasting longer than 21 days, skin irritants, and eye
irritants, notes the complaint.  Dove's products all contain skin
allergens (a.k.a. skin sensitizers) in an amount that has already
been shown to cause an allergic reaction to a significant portion
of the population, under the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification, it adds.

According to the complaint, Dove's body care products also contain
a plethora of other compounds known to cause severe skin corrosion,
serious eye damage, or are otherwise toxic or hazardous in the case
of skin contact. These products are also stuffed with other
chemicals that have not been analyzed for their skin sensitization
potential. By deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and/or
ingredients of its products, Dove is able to command a premium
price, increasing consumers' willingness to pay and take away
market share from competing products, thereby increasing its own
sales and profits.

As a result of its false and misleading labeling, Dove was able to
sell these products to hundreds of thousands of consumers
throughout the United States and to profit handsomely from these
transactions. Dove's false and misleading representations and
omissions violate state laws and common law. The Plaintiffs bring
this action to stop Dove's deceptive and misleading practices.

The Plaintiffs purchased Dove's body care products and have
suffered skin irritation, eye irritation, dermatitis, and/or an
allergic skin reaction in the past.

Unilever markets and causes the manufacture and sale of Dove
products to U.S. residents throughout New York, California, and the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin C. Mallon, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (917) 410-8290
          Email: kmallon@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Edward H. Skipton, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 735-8600
          Fax: (215) 950-8000
          Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Yvette Golan, Esq.
          THE GOLAN FIRM PLLC
          529 14th St. NW Suite 914
          Washington, D.C. 20045
          Phone: (866) 298-4150, ext. 101
          Fax: (928) 441-8250
          Email: ygolan@tgfirm.com


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
appeal from the court-granted motion for judgment in the case
entitled, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United
Parcel Service, Inc., remains pending.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.

At this time, the company does not believe that any loss associated
with any such matter will have a material impact on our operations
or financial condition.

One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court. In the second quarter of
2019, the court granted the company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings related to the wage-and-hour claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Florida Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Tom v. EEOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert Tom, Plaintiff v. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and Janet Dhillon, in her official capacity, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 20-22726-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N.
Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.

The matter arises from alleged sexual harassment the Plaintiff
suffered while an employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"), at the hands of his supervisor, Katherine
Gonzalez.  As a result of this conduct, the Plaintiff brings four
causes of action against the Defendants Janet Dhillon, in her
official capacity as Chair of the EEOC, and the EEOC itself.
Counts I and II of the Plaintiff's complaint seek relief under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Counts III and IV
seek relief under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

The matter is before the Court upon the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

At the outset, Judge Scola agrees with several unrebutted arguments
raised by the Defendants in their motion.  First, the Defendants
note in their briefing that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, a plaintiff may only sue the "head of the department,
agency, or unit" that allegedly discriminated against the
plaintiff.  The Defendant failed to rebut this argument in his
briefing.  In light of the Eleventh Circuit's clear precedent, the
Judge finds the EEOC is not a proper party to the action.

Second, the Defendants argue in their briefing that the Plaintiff's
Florida Civil Rights Act claims are improper as Title VII is the
exclusive remedy for a federal employee to bring discrimination
claims against its federal employer.  Indeed, in Brown v. General
Services Administration, the Supreme Court stated the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 "provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of
discrimination in federal employment."  The Eleventh Circuit has
reaffirmed this principle.  While the Plaintiff argues that the
Court can exercise its power of supplemental jurisdiction over his
state law claims, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's arguments
miss that Title VII is the exclusive remedy pursuant to which a
federal employee can sue its federal employer for employment
discrimination.

In light of this, the Judge dismisses with prejudice all claims
against the Defendant the EEOC.  He also dismisses with prejudice
Counts III and IV of the complaint.  As any attempts by the
Plaintiff to amend its complaint with respect to its state law
claims or with respect to claims raised against the EEOC would be
futile, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's complaint is an
impermissible shotgun pleading that must be dismissed because it
sets forth a number of irrelevant and immaterial facts and
reincorporates all preceding paragraphs into each successive count
of the complaint.  The Plaintiff responds that his complaint "does
not incorporate one count into the next what it does is use some of
the same and general allegations in all the counts, as they are all
relevant to each count."

Upon review, the Judge agrees with the Defendant that the complaint
is the "most common type" of shotgun pleading.  He therefore
dismisses without prejudice and with leave to amend Counts I and II
of the complaint.  The Plaintiff would be well advised in his
amended complaint to clearly and chronologically lay out the dates
of any alleged incidents of sexual harassment.  Clear organization
in a forthcoming amended complaint will help to reduce the number
of repetitive and vague allegations and allow the Court and the
remaining Defendant to more easily review the Plaintiff's claims.

The Judge also notes that the Plaintiff's initial complaint is
filed on behalf of himself "and similarly situated male employees,"
and therefore appears to be a class action complaint.  If the
Plaintiff intends to file a class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff
must make that clear in his complaint, provided he can satisfy
Federal Rules 11 and 23.  If the Plaintiff does not intend to file
a class action lawsuit, he should make clear that he is asserting
his claims on behalf of himself only.

In sum, Judge Scola grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He
directed the Plaintiff to file his amended complaint by March 15,
2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3cjd2vsz from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Doctor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winton at Latin American Times reports that the female
patient vividly remembers her visit eight years ago to the UCLA
office of Dr. James Heaps. He was a respected gynecologist at a
revered medical institution. There was a female chaperone in the
examination room, but she had her back to the patient.

Without gloves, the doctor began by cupping and fondling the
patient's breast in what seemed like an overly long exam, she said.
"I thought that was a little odd," she recalled. Next, Heaps
performed a pap smear and after removing the device, she said, "he
stroked my clitoris from top to bottom. I froze. I'd never been
touched by a doctor like that."

The patient hurriedly dressed and dashed out of the office.

"I called a friend," she said. "I told her I just got molested by
my doctor." The words made her feel awful, she said, and she never
wanted to discuss it again. But after Heaps was criminally charged
in 2019 with abusing his patients, the Los Angeles woman called
UCLA to report on her own experience.

In January, a judge approved a $73-million class-action settlement
with more than 5,000 former patients of Heaps who said they were
sexually battered by the physician. In the settlement, UCLA and
Heaps, 67, who was employed at the UCLA student health center and
UCLA Medical Center from 1983 to 2019, did not admit any
wrongdoing.

But the 49-year-old patient, whose alleged experience with the
doctor dates back to 2013, said she isn't about to settle her
case.

The woman sued UCLA and Heaps along with another female patient who
alleges she too was inappropriately touched by Heaps, during an
examination in 1992. Identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, the
women are suing over allegations of sexual assault, sexual battery,
emotional distress and negligence. The Times is not naming any of
the plaintiffs in keeping with its policy regarding victims of
sexual assault.

"There must be accountability," said Sandra Ribera Speed, one of
the attorneys representing the women. She said the class action
settlement approved in January might work for some victims, but
others want answers.

UCLA typically doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The settlement agreement was criticized by a state lawmaker who
wrote the law allowing accusers in the UCLA case more time to sue.
Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) said the deal undermines the
intent of Assembly Bill 3092, which took effect Jan. 1, and gives
plaintiffs in class action cases until the end of 2021 to file
lawsuits. But the settlement gives victims who want to pursue their
cases separately only 90 days to do so.

The agreement undermines the legislation "by dramatically
shortening the amount of time a victim may file a case against UCLA
and Dr. Heaps," Wicks said. Dozens of women opted out of the civil
case that resulted in the settlement agreement.

John Manly, whose firm represents more than 112 alleged victims,
said the settlement benefits only lawyers and the UC system, which
wants to keep a lid on the level of scrutiny it faces over its
knowledge of prior abuses.

The civil litigation is separate from the criminal case against
Heaps, which was expanded in August 2020 when prosecutors charged
the doctor with sexually abusing more patients. He now faces 20
felony counts, including sexual battery by fraud, sexual
exploitation of a patient, and sexual penetration of an unconscious
person.

Heaps, who has pleaded not guilty, faces more than 67 years in
prison if convicted of all charges. A preliminary hearing in the
case is slated for April.

Heaps' lawyer has said his client is not guilty of criminal charges
and maintains he acted in an appropriate manner. [GN]

UNUM GROUP: Appeal in Tennessee Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group 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 appeal in the
consolidated securities class action suit enititled, In re Unum
Group Securities Litigation, is pending.

Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants as follows:

- On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

- On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in
the Pittman matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

- On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum
Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel
Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly
traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018.

The allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman
matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman,
Cunningham, and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System
cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities
Litigation, appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended
complaint. On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial
as well as costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.

On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 4, 2019 the court heard
oral argument on the motion. On June 1, 2020, the court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the cases with prejudice.

On June 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court has scheduled oral
argument for March 2, 2021.

Unum said, "We believe the appeal and the underlying claims lack
merit and reserves have not been established for these matters as
we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.
However, an adverse outcome in one or more of these actions could,
depending on the nature, scope, and amount of any ruling,
materially adversely affect our consolidated results of operations
in a period."

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum
International, Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The
company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled,
Wolther v. Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition.

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.

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

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VELODYNE LIDAR: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Velodyne Lidar, Inc. There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ:VLDR)
Class Period: November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

The VLDR lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Velodyne
Lidar, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors
had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor
in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2)
the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in VLDR:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13394&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

VELODYNE LIDAR: The Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the publicly traded
company Velodyne Lidar, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in
the company during the date listed are encouraged to contact the
firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ:VLDR)

Investors Affected : November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to
operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their
dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) the Company
was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13388&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770

SOURCE: The Gross Law Firm [GN]

VIKING GROUP: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Crace Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IAN CRACE, Plaintiff v. VIKING GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-176 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael J. Newman of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, Dayton, grants the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
class certification, but denies the Plaintiff's motion for approval
of his class notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Defendant is a franchisee of 19 Donatos Pizza locations in the
Dayton and Springfield, Ohio region.  The Plaintiff was employed by
the Defendant at two different locations as a pizza delivery driver
from 2008 to 2010, and again from 2014 to March 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and approximately 40 to 50 other
delivery drivers were required to perform non-tipped work at the
Defendant's restaurants while earning their tipped wage.  In an
affidavit, the Plaintiff claims there were times where he spent
between "30% and 50%" of shifts performing nontipped work -- such
as folding pizza boxes, cleaning cooking equipment, and taking
customer orders -- for which he received a tipped wage.

The Plaintiff explains that his supervisors typically scheduled
three-to-five delivery drivers, one-to-two employees to work the
counter, and several cooks per shift.  Both front counter workers
and cooks received a non-tipped wage.  The Plaintiff claims
delivery drivers were asked to play a utility role: when they were
not delivering pizzas, they were assigned non-tipped restaurant
tasks.  Delivery drivers allegedly delivered orders on a
"last-in-first-out" basis, meaning each new delivery was made by
the driver who had been at the restaurant the longest.  The
Plaintiff believes this policy resulted in delivery drivers
performing tipped and non-tipped work in relative proportion.

The Plaintiff brings the class action complaint on behalf of
delivery drivers employed by the Defendant from May 6, 2017 to the
present for alleged violations of: The Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19; the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code Sections 4111.01-.04; Article II,
Section 34(a) of the Ohio Constitution; and the Prompt Pay Act,
Ohio Rev. Code Section 4113.15.  He asks the Court to conditionally
certify a FLSA class and authorize distribution of an opt-in notice
to putative class members.

The parties' dispute in the motion is two-fold.  First, they
contend that two different pieces of DOL tip-credit guidance are
operative and should guide the Court's assessment of whether the
putative class suffered a "single-FLSA violating policy."  The
Defendant also questions how the Plaintiff could be similarly
situated to other putative class members based on his personal
knowledge despite spending much of his job delivering pizzas.  The
Plaintiff counters by pointing out that the Defendant's managers
communicated to him that all delivery drivers similarly performed
non-tipped tasks.

Judge Newman explains that the new tip credit rule codifies the tip
credit guidance announced in the 2009 and 2018 opinion letters.
Section 531.56(e)(2) directs employers to engage in a two-step
analysis before deducting a tip credit.  First, the duties must be
related to the employee's tipped occupation.  Second, the employee
must perform the related duties contemporaneously with the
tip-producing activities or within a reasonable time immediately
before or after the tipped activities.  Like the 2018 Opinion
Letter, the new tip rule directs employers to O*NET for guidance on
determining when a non-tipped task is related to a tipped
employee's occupation.

How the new tip credit rule effects the litigation is not an issue
squarely before the Court.  At the notice stage, district courts
within the Sixth Circuit typically do not consider the merits of
the plaintiff's claims.  Instead, the Court anticipates that the
parties will submit briefing on how the new tip credit rule impacts
the case when appropriate.  For the same reason, the Judge declines
to entertain the Defendant's merits argument at this stage.

Notwithstanding the new tip credit rule, the Judge holds that the
Defendant's merits argument is not persuasive at the conditional
certification stage.  Therefore, he takes no position on whether
the Defendant's tip credit policy facially violates the FLSA.  The
Plaintiff has adequately alleged the putative class is unified
under common theories of the Defendant's alleged statutory
violation to satisfy the conditional certification hurdle.

The Judge also holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently proven the
putative class is similarly situated.  The Defendant does not
disagree with the Plaintiff's allegation that his experience was
representative of others in the putative class.  The Plaintiff
explains he and the other delivery drivers were subject to the same
last-in-first-out policy such that they completed a proportional
amount of non-tipped work.  The Plaintiff also supports his
allegations with statements from his supervisors that suggest the
Defendant's managers of other locations staffed delivery drivers
similarly to where the Plaintiff worked.  These allegations,
according to the Judge, satisfy the "modest showing" needed at the
conditional certification stage.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court approves the proposed class
notice attached to its motion for conditional certification.   He
asks that notice be provided to all delivery drivers employed by
Defendant from May 6, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the
complaint) to the present.  The Notice will be delivered to current
employees by ordinary mail and to former employees by both regular
and electronic mail.  The proposed class notice explains to
putative class members that they must opt into the class to be
entitled to compensation procured from the litigation.  The
putative class members are directed to return the opt-in form and
direct any questions to the Plaintiff's counsel.  The Defendant
does not object to the proposed class notice.

The Judge finds several issues with the Plaintiff's proposed class
notice, and, for that reason he directs the parties to confer on a
revised proposed class notice to be submitted for Court approval
forthwith.  If the Defendant has no objection to the revised
proposed class notice, the Plaintiff will advise the Court -- in a
motion seeking approval of such notice -- that such request is
unopposed.  Any objections to the revised class notice can be
brought to the attention of the Court in accompanying memoranda
that may be filed within seven days following any motion for
approval of the revised proposed class notice.  A reply may be
filed within seven days after the filing of any opposition.

The proposed class notice should be directed to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs employed by the Defendant at any time three years prior
to the Court's order approving the revised notice.  A revised
notice must address two other deficiencies.  The Judge finds that
the Plaintiff's proposed notice does not inform putative class
members they are entitled to secure their own counsel.
Accordingly, he directs that the revised notice must communicate to
putative class members they have the right to select their own
lawyer and, if they have any questions about class participation,
that they can contact either the Plaintiff's counsel or the counsel
of their own choosing.

The revised notice must also set a proposed notice period.  If the
proposed opt-in deadline deviates from a 90-day period, the counsel
must explain their reasoning.  The Plaintiff's proposed notice
method is appropriate, the Judge finds.  To facilitate notice
distribution, the Defendant must produce the following information
to the Plaintiff's counsel about the putative class within 14 days
of the Court's order approving the revised class notice: (1) each
employee's full name; (2) all known employee addresses; and (3) all
e-mail addresses of former employees.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Newman (1) grants the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification, but (2) denies the
Plaintiff's motion to approve its proposed class notice.

The Court certifies the following class: "All Defendant's current
and former delivery drivers who were subject to Defendant's tip
credit policy at any time during the three years prior to the date
of this Court's order approving the class notice."

The Judge further orders the parties to confer and submit to the
Court: (1) a revised opt-in class notice and consent form and (2) a
distribution plan within 14 days from the date of his Order.  The
parties will inform the Court in writing by that date if any
dispute arises over the language in, or distribution of, the
revised class notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m9b38ueu from Leagle.com.


W.B. MASON: Faces Atlantic Coast Suit Over Counterfeit Masks
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Coast Creations, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. W.B. Mason Co., Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10278-ADB (D. Mass. Feb. 18, 2021), is a putative class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative nationwide
class of similarly situated entity consumers and individual
consumers who have purchased the Defendant's respirator product.

3M is a leading manufacturer of N95 respirator products in the
United States. 3M's respirators are well known by consumers, highly
sought after by consumers, and considered the "gold standard" for
protection against pathogens.

3M produces an N95 model 1860 respirator product, which filters out
95 percent of harmful pathogens and can be a life-saving product
for use in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

The Defendant has deceptively labeled, marketed, and misleadingly
sold a counterfeit N95, 3M model number 1860, respirator product
(Counterfeit Mask) whose origin is not from 3M, the suit contends.

The Defendant has allegedly misused the 3M trademark on the
Counterfeit Masks' packaging to deceive and mislead consumers by
trading on the goodwill of a reputable manufacturer that
manufactures and sells the Genuine Mask. The Defendant has further
misled the Plaintiff, individual consumers, and consuming entities
to believe that the Counterfeit Mask is a Genuine Mask. The
Plaintiff and the Class purchased Defendant's Product on the
reasonable, but the mistaken, belief that the Product was a Genuine
3M Mask, the suit added.

The Plaintiff seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful,
deceptive, fraudulent, unfair, and unjust labeling, marketing, and
selling at grossly inflated prices, its Counterfeit Masks.

The Plaintiff also seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a jury
trial for the Defendant's unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, unfair,
and misleading actions that provide the basis for the Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          (RI Bar No. 3351)
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

WALGREEN CO: Claims in Eidmann Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMERON EIDMANN, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-04805-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, grants Walgreens' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Eidmann alleges the
marketing of Defendant Walgreen's Infants' Pain & Fever
Acetaminophen is false and misleading and violates California
consumer protection statutes.

Walgreens is a national drugstore chain that sells brand-name
products, as well as Walgreens-branded products, known as "private
label" products.  Among Walgreens' portfolio of private label goods
are over-the-counter pain relievers and fever reducers produced
specifically for young children.

At issue are two private label acetaminophen products -- one
marketed as Walgreens Infants' Pain & Fever ("Infants' Product")
and Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen ("Children's Product").
Prior to the time period at issue in the action, infant and
children's products contained differing acetaminophen
concentrations -- with infant products containing 80 mg per mL,
whereas children's product contained 160 mg per 5 mL of
acetaminophen.  In 2011, manufacturers instituted an industry-wide
effort to prevent accidental infant overdoses by changing the
concentration of liquid acetaminophen in infant's products to be
the same as the children's products at 160 mg per 5 mL.

In line with this industry standard, Walgreens Infants' Product and
Children's Product have the same concentration of acetaminophen
listed on the front of their respective packaging.  Both packages
also display the age ranges for the products with Infants' Product
listing "Ages 2-3 Years" and Children's Product listing "Ages 2-11
Years."  The products are distinguished by the depictions of the
dosing mechanism.  The Infants' Product displays a drawing of a
syringe with the instruction to "Use only with enclosed syringe,"
whereas the Children's product only displays a depiction of a
dosing cup.

Plaintiff Eidmann alleges that Walgreens has been engaging in the
unfair, unlawful, and deceptive practice of manufacturing,
marketing and selling its store brand pediatric acetaminophen as
two separate products.  This deception thus leads consumers to
believe the Infants' Product is specially formulated for infants
since neither label indicates "that the formulation of the two
medicines is entirely identical."  As a result, consumers are
injured because "the Infants' Product can cost almost four times as
much per ounce than the Children's Product, despite being identical
medicines."

In the summer of 2020, Eidmann filed his first complaint.  Several
months later, Walgreens filed a motion to dismiss.  In lieu of
filing a response, Eidmann filed the operative First Amended
Complaint.  The FAC asserts four causes of action: (1) violations
of the California False and Misleading Advertising Law ("FAL"); (2)
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
(3) violation of the unfair and fraudulent prong of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) violation of the unlawful
prong of the UCL. Shortly after, Walgreens filed the instant motion
to dismiss the FAC.  Eidmann filed an opposition.  Walgreens filed
a reply.

Before addressing the merits of the motion, Judge Davila first
considers Walgreens' request for judicial notice, and Eidmann's
request for judicial notice.  Both parties submit documents from
similar sources, so the Judge will consider them together.  Neither
party has opposed the requests for judicial notice.

Walgreens requests judicial notice of regulations promulgated by
the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  Documents published in
the Federal Register are proper for judicial notice.  Therefore,
the Judge grants Walgreens' Request for Judicial Notice as to the
FDA regulations.

Walgreens requests judicial notice of information related to the
concentration of acetaminophen in infant medicine published on the
FDA website.  Likewise, Eidmann requests judicial notice of FDA
webpages related to the regulatory process for over-the-counter
drugs.  Since documents published on government-run websites are
proper for judicial notice given their reliability, and since both
parties' documents were published to the FDA website, coupled with
the fact that neither party contests the accuracy of the documents,
the Judge will take judicial notice of the FDA webpages submitted
by Walgreens and Eidmann.

Walgreens further seeks judicial notice of three images: (1) the
product label for Infants' Product, (2) the product label for
Children's Product, and (3) a side-by-side comparison of the two
images.  The Judge finds that Exhibits 5-7 meet the standard for
judicial notice under the doctrine of incorporation by reference.
Eidmann makes numerous references to both product labels in the
Amended Complaint.  Moreover, the labels are central to Eidmann's
claims because it is the information conveyed on the Infants'
Product packaging that Eidmann alleges was false or misleading.
Importantly, Eidmann does not dispute the authenticity of the
product labels.  Therefore, the Judge grants Walgreens' Request for
Judicial Notice regarding Exhibits 5-7.

The final materials requested for judicial notice by Walgreens are
court orders from three cases in the Northern and Central Districts
of California: Danielle Lokey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No.
3:20-cv-04782-LB; Rony Elkies, et al. v. Johnson and Johnson
Services, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-07320-GW-JEM, and Brian
Youngblood, et al v. CVS Pharmacy, Case No. 2:20-cv-06251-MCS-MRW.
Walgreens RJN, Exh. 8-13.  Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-4, the
Court may consider the orders and opinions of federal courts as
long as the order is not designated "Not For Citation" under Civil
Local Rule 7-14 or similar rules of other jurisdictions.  Thus, the
Court may consider these cases as persuasive authority, but need
not grant judicial notice of the orders.  Accordingly, the Judge
denies Walgreens' Request for Judicial Notice regarding Exhibits
8-13.

Turning to Eidmann's claims under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL, Eidmann
asserts four causes of action against Walgreens: (1) violation of
California's FAL; (2) violation of the CLRA; (3) violation of the
fraudulent and unlawful prongs of the UCL; and (4) violation of the
unfair prong of the UCL.  Eidmann grounds his claims under the FAL,
CLRA, and UCL on the theory that Walgreens' packaging and marketing
of the Infants' Product misled customers into believing the product
is specially formulated for infants, thereby inducing customers
into paying a premium price.  Because Eidmann's allegations rest
upon this unified theory, all of his claims must "rise or fall
together."  Therefore, the Judge considers these three causes of
action together.

The Judge holds that it is not plausible that a "significant
portion of the general consuming public" would be misled to believe
that Infants' Product is specially formulated for infants.
Therefore, Eidmann has failed to state a claim that Infants'
Product is misleading or deceptive under the FAL, CLRA, and
fraudulent prong of the UCL.

In addition to alleged misrepresentations, Eidmann also asserts
violations of the FAL, CLRA, and UCL based upon an omission theory.
He argues that Walgreens failed to expressly state that the
Infants' Product and Children's Product contain identical
formulations, which he alleges is contrary to the "affirmative
representations that the Infants' Product is for infants.  Eidmann
further argues that Walgreens was obligated to disclose this
information to consumers.

The Judge grants Walgreens' motion to dismiss Eidmann's claims
under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL based on fraudulent omission theories.
He finds that Eidmann cannot point to any affirmative statements
that Infants' formula is unique or distinct from Children's.
Moreover, the Judge does not find that the packaging implies an
infant-specific formulation, especially considering the numerous
representations on the packaging that do state the identical
formulations.  Eidmann fails to adequately plead that Walgreens has
a duty to disclose that the Infants' Product is identical to the
Children's Product.  Eidmann does not put forth any facts to
establish a fiduciary relationship between himself and Walgreens.
More importantly, Eidmann cannot show the allegedly omitted
information is within the exclusive knowledge of Walgreens.

Mr. Eidmann further alleges the violations of the FAL, CLRA, and
UCL constitute predicate acts which violate the UCL's unlawful
prong.  He bases his unlawful arguments on the same alleged conduct
the Court found inadequate under the fraudulent misrepresentation
and omission theories above.  Because Eidmann failed to allege
violations of the FAL, CLRA, and UCL pursuant to Rule 9(b), he is
precluded from utilizing these violations as predicate acts under
the unlawful prong of the UCL.  Likewise, Eidmann's claim under the
unfair prong of the UCL fails for similar reasons.  Therefore, for
the same reasons he grants Walgreens' motion to dismiss claims
under the fraudulent and unlawful prongs of the UCL, the Judge
grants Walgreens' motion to dismiss Eidmann's claim under the
unlawful prong of the UCL.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Davila grants Walgreens' Motion
to Dismiss all claims under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL.  He finds that
leave to amend would be futile in the case for several reasons.
First, Eidmann has already had the opportunity to amend his claims
in the FAC.  Second, because the Court's analysis is based in large
part on the express disclosures on the Infants' Product packaging,
which are undisputed, there are no further facts Eidmann can allege
to cure the complaint.  For these reasons, Eidmann's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/u8ma9k5j from Leagle.com.


WELCH FOODS: Augustine Sues Over Mislabeled Grape Juice Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA AUGUSTINE, ADRIANA MCCLORIA, and MATTHEW RUTLEDGE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WELCH FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00332-GPC-NLS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant fails to disclose its products containing artificial
flavoring.

According to the complaint, the Defendant labels and advertises its
juice-based beverage product as "Light Concord Grape Juice
Beverage" and another such juice-based beverage product as "Light
White Grape Juice Beverage" ("Products"). The Plaintiffs allege
that they were deceived by and relied upon the Products' deceptive
labeling, and specifically the Defendant's omission of the fact
that the Products contained artificial flavorings.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products believing they were
naturally-flavored, based on the Products' deceptive labeling.
Because the Plaintiffs reasonably assumed the Products to be free
of artificial flavoring, based on the Products' labels, when they
were not, they did not receive the benefit of their purchases. The
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Products in the absence of
the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the suit says.

Welch Foods Inc A Cooperative, doing business as Welch's, produces
and markets grape products. The Company offers refrigerated juices,
juice cocktails, jams and jellies, and snacks. Welch Foods serves
the foodservice customers such as schools, business and industry,
lodging, colleges and universities, healthcare, and
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

               -and-

          David Elliot, Esq.
          ELLIOT LAW OFFICE PC
          2028 3rd Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 468-4865


WILLOWS INN: To Pay $600K to Settle Suit Over Wage Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Willows Inn, a nationally
acclaimed restaurant on Lummi Island that has been accused of
underpaying its employees, has agreed to pay $600,000 to settle a
class-action lawsuit over wage theft accusations.

As part of the preliminary settlement, management at The Willows
Inn has not admitted to any wrongdoing, The Seattle Times reported.
The two employees who filed the lawsuit are bound by a
non-disclosure agreement from discussing the dispute.

But in the lawsuit filed in Whatcom County Superior Court in 2017,
the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that The Willows Inn had violated
state labor and wage laws including the withholding of tips and
overtime pay, and in some cases, that it did not pay employees at
all for shifts worked.

For some employees, including those who cook, clean and service The
Willows Inn, all the hours worked amounted to "less than minimum
wage," according to the suit.

Under the settlement, the 99 non-supervisory employees identified
as members of the class-action suit will recover about 75% of the
unpaid wage claims, which the parties estimate will total $600,000.
[GN]

WISCONSIN SPECIALTY: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WISCONSIN SPECIALTY PROTEIN, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01513-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2021) is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.simplyteras.com, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a plant and whey protein company that owns and
operates www.simplyteras.com, offering features which should allow
all consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

WORLDPAC INC: Fails to Pay Regular & Overtime Wages, Santos Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADY SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WORLDPAC, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RG21089090 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Feb. 17, 2021) alleges
that Worldpac engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants take improper deductions
from the wages of the Plaintiff and proposed class members, fail to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, fail to provide rest
periods or provide separate compensation for missed rest periods,
and fail to pay regular and overtime wages for all hours worked,
including for all non-productive time.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendants. The
Defendants employ the Plaintiff as inside sales representative. He
began working for the Defendants in 1995.

Worldpac distributes motor vehicle equipment and aftermarket
replacement automotive parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com

               - and -

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
          BUSCH & RADWICK, LLP
          Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 941111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com

YUM-YUM TOO: Kitchen Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quirino Ortega Gonzalez, Antonio Ortega Gonzalez and Cruz Mejia, on
behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff, v. Ninth Ave. Kitchen Corp., Boyythai Corp., Amnard
Bhuviriyakul, Nares Jetanamest and Peter Kwanchaipruck, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-01158, (S.D. N.Y., February 9, 2021), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of
hours" pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant "Yum-Yum Too," located
in New York where Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff. They claim to
generally work over 40 hours per week without the appropriate
overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      10 Grand Central
      155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Securities Suit Tossed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES REIDINGER, Plaintiff v. ZENDESK, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06968-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R.
Bryer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Zendesk's motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint with leave to amend.

A class of Zendesk stock purchasers led by Local 353, I.B.E.W.
Pension Fund is suing Zendesk and two Zendesk officers for
securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Rule 10b-5.

On Jan. 24, 2020, the Court consolidated two putative securities
class action lawsuits against Zendesk and appointed the Pension
Fund as the Lead Plaintiff.  The Pension Fund then filed an Amended
Class Action Complaint on behalf of all purchasers of Zendesk
common stock between Feb. 6, 2019 and Oct. 1, 2019, inclusive.

The First Amended Complaint alleged that Zendesk and three officers
-- CEO Mikkel Svane, CFO Elena Gomez, and Senior VP of Worldwide
Sales Norman Gennaro -- committed securities fraud in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The
Pension Fund also alleged that the Individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as control persons
liable for any fraud committed by Zendesk and its employees.

The Pension Fund's original claims centered on Zendesk's public
statements during the class period in relation to two events: (1)
subpar performance in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa and
Asia-Pacific regions during Q2 2019; and (2) the Sept. 24, 2019
discovery and subsequent disclosure of a data breach that had been
ongoing for three years.

The Court dismissed the Pension Fund's claims with respect to
subpar regional performance because the Pension Fund had not
adequately pleaded any false or misleading statement, or facts
supporting a strong inference of scienter -- that is, Zendesk's
intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.  It dismissed the
Pension Fund's claim with respect to the data breach because
Zendesk's failure to disclose the breach was the only potentially
material misstatement or omission that the Pension Fund alleged,
and the Pension Fund's allegations did not suggest that Zendesk or
its officers intended to deceive investors about the breach.  The
Court granted the Pension Fund leave to amend.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the Pension Fund filed a Second Amended Complaint.
It noted that it had "not renewed its allegations concerning"
Zendesk's regional performance or its claims against Zendesk Senior
VP of Worldwide Sales Norman Gennaro.  Instead, the Pension Fund
supplemented its allegations regarding the data breach.  In its
Second Amended Complaint, the Pension Fund alleges that Zendesk
made false and misleading statements relating to Zendesk's data
security, resulting in harm to investors after the public learned
that Zendesk had suffered a data breach that went undetected for
nearly three years.

Zendesk has moved to dismiss the Pension Fund's Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be
granted.  It argues that the Pension Fund has not stated a claim
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because the Pension Fund has not
identified any false statement or actionable omission regarding
Zendesk's data security, has failed to plead facts giving rise to a
"strong inference" of scienter, and has failed to plead a causal
connection between any material misrepresentation and a loss to
investors.

The Pension Fund argues that Zendesk's statements before the breach
was disclosed were misleading because it lacked "a comprehensive
data security program that was continuously reviewed and monitored
and up to the highest standards," and "gave investors the
impression that the Company took all possible steps to secure and
protect sensitive information."  It also argues that its
allegations support a strong inference of scienter because Zendesk
either "knew" about or "recklessly disregarded" its failure to
"comply with AWS's or even its own best practices" while making
public statements about its comprehensive security program.

Judge Bryer agrees with Zendesk that the Pension Fund has failed to
state a claim for securities fraud under the PSLRA's special
pleading requirements.  The Pension Fund alleges certain mistakes
that resulted in a long-undetected data breach.  But although
Section 10(b) is aptly described as a catchall provision what it
catches must be fraud.

The Judge holds that the Pension Fund has failed to state a claim
for securities fraud for two independent reasons.  First, the
Pension Fund has not pleaded a material misstatement or omission
because the Pension Fund has neither identified any misleading
statement relating to Zendesk's data security nor explained how
Zendesk could have disclosed additional information that would have
made Zendesk's statements "not misleading."  Second, as before, its
allegations do not give rise to the "strong inference" that Zendesk
or its officers acted with the intent to deceive, manipulate, or
defraud investors.  Instead, those allegations support the
"competing" inference that Zendesk was simply unaware of its
mistakes or their consequences -- a more "compelling" inference
than the convoluted fraudulent scheme that the Pension Fund has
attempted to allege.

First, the Judge finds that the Pension Fund has not alleged a
false statement or the omission of any information that Zendesk had
a duty to disclose.  Therefore, the Pension Fund has not stated a
claim for securities fraud, and the Judge need not address whether
the Pension Fund has shown "a substantial likelihood that a
reasonable shareholder would consider" the information to be
"important."

Next, the Judge finds that the inference urged by the Pension Fund
regarding Zendesk and its officers' scienter is not "as compelling
as any opposing inference."  The Pension Fund's theory of Zendesk's
fraudulent intent is, at best, convoluted: Zendesk's officers did
not know about a data breach, but chose to mislead investors during
the 2019 class period by refusing to disclose past security
mistakes, while nonetheless disclosing that Zendesk might have
suffered an undetected breach.  The Pension Fund's allegations do
not support the "strong inference" that Zendesk was engaged in such
a novel fraudulent scheme.

Instead, the Judge holds that they strongly support the competing
inferences that (1) someone at Zendesk made a serious mistake by
sharing AWS keys a third party vendor, which -- combined with
Zendesk's failure to implement multifactor authentication --
resulted in a breach; and (2) Zendesk's failure to use logging
features may have compounded these errors by letting the breach go
undetected for nearly three years; but (3) Zendesk's 2019
statements warned investors about this exact possibility; and thus
(4) Zendesk's officers did not intend Zendesk's statements during
the class period to be misleading or deliberately disregard the
risk that they would be misleading.  The Pension Fund's allegations
suggest that Zendesk failed to protect sensitive data, not that
Zendesk intended to defraud investors.

Finally, because the Pension Fund has not stated an underlying
securities fraud claim, its Section  20(a) control persons claim
fails.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Bryer has determined that oral
argument is unnecessary and vacated the hearing previously
scheduled for March 5, 2021.  He granted Zendesk's motion to
dismiss.  Because it is conceivable that the Pension Fund could add
allegations to cure the described deficiencies, the Judge granted
the Pension Fund leave to amend.  The Pension Fund will have 21
days from the date of the Order to file another amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/emtym93p from Leagle.com.


ZION FARM: Faces Baten Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL BATEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZION FARM LLC d/b/a DELMONICO GOURMET FOOD MARKET,
EASTERN FARMS, INC. d/b/a DELMONICO GOURMET FOOD MARKET, and YOUNG
A. LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01706 (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged flagrant and willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from 2013 through on or
about July 2, 2019 as a non-managerial employee.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees to work over 40 hours per
week throughout their employment with the Defendants. However, the
Defendant paid them below minimum wage and failed to pay them
appropriate overtime compensation at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to provide them with accurate
and/or complete wage statements on each payday, the suit says.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employee who
suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' willful violations
of the FLSA and NYLL, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages,
liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties, litigation
costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, and expert
witness fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as
the Court finds necessary and proper.

The Corporate Defendants jointly owned and operated a food market.
Young A. Lee was the President and owner of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th St., Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***