/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210315.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 47

                            Headlines

ACCELERATED SERVICES: Bazille Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
AETNA LIFE: Wolff Files Bid for Class Certification
ALABAMA: McVeigh Bid for Class Certification Tossed
ALEX AZAR: Lewis Suit Files Re-Notice for Class Certification
ALLY FINANCIAL: Facing Stock Market Manipulation Related Suits

AMERICAN JOURNEY: Deluna Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Products
AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action
AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Suit Underway
APPLE REIT: Court Grants Vergara Bid to Certify Class
ARIZONA: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed in Toomey Suit

BACKYARD LAWN: Ceballos Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
BAGELCODE USA: Operates Illegal Casino Game App, Engelbretson Says
BAJCO ILLINOIS: Regan BIPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
BANK OF AMERICA: All Discovery & Proceedings in Blann Suit Stayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Cir. Affirms in Part Rulings in Degamo Suit

BANK OF NEW YORK: All Discovery & Proceedings in McLane Suit Stayed
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Cert.
BEECH NUT NUTRITION: Loggins Files Suit in M.D. Florida
BILGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Antonio Suit Alleges
BLOCK.ONE: Bid for Alternative Service of Process in Williams OK'd

BOISE SCHOOL: Court Junks Zeyen Bid for Class Certification
BOK FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix 401k Plan Related Suit vs. Unit Pending
BOK FINANCIAL: CARES Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed
BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Putative Class Action Remains Stayed

CAST PARTS: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
CDM FEDERAL: Ali Employment Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex.
CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Jenkins BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
CITYMORTGAGE INC: All Discovery & Proceedings in Morton Suit Stayed
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products

CLUBS OF AMERICA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice
COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS: Faces Cummings Labor Code Suit in California
COPPER RIVER: Aparicio Consumer Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CORNERSTONE APPAREL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California

CREE INC: Wedra Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CRM DEVELOPMENT: Decuir Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
DENNIS GROSS: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Due August 11
DIGNITY COMMUNITY: Lagman Seeks Unpaid Wages for Health Workers
DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Iliff Class Suit Goes to D. Minnesota

EAGLE SECURITY: Macias Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
EASTERN WISCONSIN WATER: Bid to Strike Class in Kapp Suit Tossed
ENBRIDGE INC: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot in Robertson Suit
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: O'Donnell Appeals Court's Entry of Judgment
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit Over COI Rate Increase Ongoing

EVVI RESTAURANT: Meyer et al. Sue Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Villegas Slams Tip Credit, Denied OT Pay
FABFITFUN INC: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
FIDELITY BANK: All Discovery and Proceedings in Ford Suit Stayed
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Class Status Filing Extended to August 13

FIVE GUYS: Lusk Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
FLO HEALTH: Faces Chen Suit Over Medical Information Data Breach
FLORIDA: Boatman Seeks Certification of Class Action
FLORIDA: Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition Filed in Vigliotti's Case
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Gregorio Class Suit

GEMSNY CORP: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Tracks Website Activity Without Consent, Suit Says
GILL INDUSTRIES: Walters Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
GLENVIEW TERRACE: Biloche BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
GO WIRELESS: Vess Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California

GOLDEN MEADOW, LA: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Herigodt Suit
GRAND CANYON: Opposition to Little Class Cert. Bid Due April 6
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Castro Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Improperly Pays Workers, Parada Suit Claims
GRUNDFOS PUMPS: Smith Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Hanson Alleges
HAIN CELESTIAL: Henry Files Suit in E.D. New York for Fraud
HOLMES COUNTY SHERIFF: Corrections Officers Win Conditional Status
HOME DEPOT: Mendiola ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Bleiler et al., Get Class Action Certification

INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
INSPIRE SUMMITS: Barlow FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
INSURANCE SERVICES: Court Tosses Lehman Bid for Class Certification
JAMESTOWN TN: Time to File Class Status Bid Extended to April 30
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Underway

JAWZ PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Charles Suit Claims
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Lead Role in Guttentag Due on April 19
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Suit Over SOPRA Study Pending
KELLER WILLIAMS: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Becker Class Suit
KNOXVILLE PALLET: Lumpkin Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status

KOOPLES USA: Faces Chu Suit Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
KPC HEALTHCARE: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for July 30
LABOR SOURCE: Murphy, Rogers File Conditional Certification Bid
MANNA DEVELOPMENT: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Parker Suit Alleges

MERCURY GENERAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Cert. of National Damages Class
MGM RESORTS: Conditional Class Certification Filing Due June 25
MICHIGAN EDUCATION: Eligible Student Class in D.R. Suit Certified
MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Suit Pending
MICRO FOCUS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit

MICRO FOCUS: Ross and Rogus Putative Class Suit vs. HPE Underway
MICRO FOCUS: Settlement in Araiza Granted Final Approval
MIKE BLOOMBERG INC: Abed Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Constantinou Sues Over Stock Price Drop
MOON ACTIVE: Fryar Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Coin Master

MOVING SOLUTIONS: Final Settlement Approval in Rider Suit Modified
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: All Discovery, Proceedings in Cone Suit Stayed
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Certification of Loan Customer Class Sought
NCEP LLC: Hou-Seye FDCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
NEED A GENERAL: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads

NEW YORK: Court Wants Report on Issues in D.A. That Overlap w/ M.G.
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Disselkamp Class Settlement Wins Initial OK
NTN BUZZTIME: Carlson Sues Over Failure to Hold Stockholder Meeting
OMNICELL INC: June 4 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Heard Suit
PARADIGM MANAGEMENT: AIP Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement

PENN CREDIT: Thomas TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PERI & SONS: Guzman Labor Suit Moved From S.D. to E.D. California
PETS GLOBAL: Gifford Sues Over Zignature Pet Foods' Deceptive Label
PHC SERVICE: Casillas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
PILLPACK LLC: Asks Court to Reconsider Feb. 12 Class Status Order

PONY INDY: Dalton Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
PREMIER FINANCIAL: Deadline for Class Status Filing Set for May 14
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Ogurkiewicz Consumer Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cowley Alleges
QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers

R&J TRAILERS: Thompson Seeks Unpaid Customer Servicer Workers' OT
REALOGY GROUP: Parties in Tanaskovic Suit Won't Pursue Litigation
REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Appeals Grant of Demurrer to Subsidiary
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Dyer Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
REDFIN CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Class Suit Pending

RENO, NE: April 14 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid Sought
RING LLC: Foster Files Suit in C.D. California
RODAN & FIELDS: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for June 3
RYDER LAST MILE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for March 23
SALVAGED LIVES: Faces Alatriste Suit Over Labor Code Violations

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Johnson Suit Seeks to Certify Seven Classes
SARASOTA, FL: Grames et al., Bid for Class Certification Tossed
SCOTT CROW: Cole Seeks to Certify Case as Class Action
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: In the Park Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
SHRED-IT USA: Bid to Dismiss & Compel Arbitration in Poston Denied

STAAR SURGICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
STERICYCLE INC: April 2 Extension OK'd for Class Cert. Response
STERICYCLE INC: Seeks April 2 Extension of Class Cert. Response
STOCKPILE INC: Winzig Suit Removed to C.D. California
T K PROMOTIONS: Ferrer Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers

TANDEM DIABETES: Demurrer in Deluna Consolidated Class Suit Pending
TARGET CORPORATION: Colon Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
TOTAL INSURANCE: June 21 Extension for Class Status Filing OK'd
TOTAL INSURANCE: June 21 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

TRUIST FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank
TULA INC: Faces Carpenter Suit Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products
U.S. BANK: All Discovery and Proceedings in Kehler Suit Stayed
UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Maryland Pending
UNITED AIRLINES: Simoni Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Complaint Junked
UNIVERSAL TRUCKLOAD: Mack Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
USI INSURANCE: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Cunningham Alleges
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Revised Bid for FLSA Conditional Cert. Filed
VIMAL INC: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Website's Room Access Features

WARNER MUSIC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit
WARRANTECH CORP: Jett Seeks to Certify Class of ESP Purchasers
WELLS FARGO: All Discovery & Proceedings in Moehring Suit Stayed
WILLIAM BLAIR: Jaquez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
WIN-WIN HOTEL: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says

ZURICH AMERICAN: Court Reconsiders Injunction Order in Covil Suit

                            *********

ACCELERATED SERVICES: Bazille Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HORACE BAZILLE, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ACCELERATED SERVICES LLC and DOES
1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20071487, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 9,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01657 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including willful misclassification, unpaid
wages, penalties for untimely payment of wages, meal and rest
period premium payments, reimbursement of expenses, wage statement
penalties, and civil penalties.

Accelerated Services LLC is a shipping company in Parker, Colorado.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
         Adam F. Sloustcher, Esq.
         Haylee Saathoff, 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
                 asloustcher@fisherphillips.com
                 hsaathoff@fisherphillips.com

AETNA LIFE: Wolff Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE WOLFF, Individually
and as Class representative on behalf of others Similarly Situated,
v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01596-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff files the instant
Motion for Class Certification and requests that the Court
establish a briefing and hearing schedule on class certification at
the close of discovery.

The Plaintiff files this Motion pursuant this Court's Order of
November 4, 2020, requiring Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class
Certification. Pursuant to this Court's Case Management Order, fact
discovery is tentatively scheduled to end on June 11, 2021 and
expert discovery is scheduled to end on January 21, 2022.

By conducting briefing and a hearing after the close of discovery,
the parties and this Court will be able to conduct the "rigorous
analysis" that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied
as required by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
564 U.S. 338 (2011), the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company does not concur in the
instant motion, she adds.

Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other
plans. The Rawlings Group is an recovery service for health
insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vcHBUk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
          KANNEBECKER LAW
          104 W. High Street
          Milford, PA 18337
          Telephone: (570) 296-6471

ALABAMA: McVeigh Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS McVEIGH, v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, et al.,  Case No.
2:21-cv-00087-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. Austin
Huffaker, Jr. entered an order:

   1. adopting The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

This case is not closed and is referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, says Judge Huffacker.

On February 8, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to
which no timely objection has been filed. There being no objection
filed to the Recommendation.

Alabama Department of Pardons and Parole is a government agency
that promotes and enhances public safety through cooperation and
collaboration with the Legislature, the Courts, the Department of
Corrections, other criminal justice agencies, victims, and the
community by providing investigation, supervision, and surveillance
services in a holistic approach to rehabilitating adult offenders.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cDb69J at no extra charge.[CC]

ALEX AZAR: Lewis Suit Files Re-Notice for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL A. LEWIS, et al., v.
ALEX M. AZAR II, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health
and Human Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs Carol Lewis and Douglas Sargent file a re-notice Class
Certification motion previously filed on March 23, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that while they disagree with aspects of the
Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss, the remaining
Causes of Action have the same class members as previously
identified and that were the subject of the Motion to Certify and
all the arguments are the same.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Carol Lewis and Douglas Sargent's
re-notice of class certification motion dated Feb. 26, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38qGtCP at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq.
          D.C. Bar No. 181768
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 753-3800
          Facsimile: (202) 753-3838
          E-mail: jblumenfeld@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          James C. Pistorino, Esq.
          PARRISH LAW OFFICES
          788 Washington Road
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: (412) 561-6250
          Facsimile: (412) 561-6253
          E-mail: james@dparrishlaw.com

ALLY FINANCIAL: Facing Stock Market Manipulation Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing
multiple purported class action suits related to alleged stock
market manipulation.

In February 2021, a purported class action, Cheng et al. v. Ally
Financial Inc. et al.—was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00781).

The complaint alleges that Ally and other defendants conspired to
prevent or restrict retail investors from purchasing or otherwise
acquiring long positions in specified equity securities and to
force them instead to sell their positions in those securities at
artificially lower prices.

The claims include alleged violations of antitrust and
unfair-competition laws, misleading public statements, breach of
fiduciary duty and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, negligence, and constructive fraud.

The request for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages,
fees, costs, and interest, injunctive relief, and other remedies.

Also in February 2021, three other purported class actions were
filed Clapp et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
3:21-cv-00896), Dechirico et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case
No. 1:21-cv-00677), and Ross et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et al.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case
No. 4:21-cv-00292).

The allegations and requested relief in the Clapp, Dechirico, and
Ross complaints are substantially similar to those included in the
Cheng complaint.

Ally said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each of these
actions."

Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. Ally Financial serves
clients in the United States. The company is based in Detroit,
Michigan.


AMERICAN JOURNEY: Deluna Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Products
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DELUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN JOURNEY (PET), LLC; and CHEWY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60483 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 2, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants violated the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act, the Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act and Florida's Deceptive and
the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members rely on
the Defendants' representations that the dog food products include
ingredients which are specifically formulated for the health needs
of dogs, meet their own ingredient promises and warranties, and
adhere to quality and manufacturing standards. The Plaintiff and
Class Members also rely on the Defendants' representations that the
dog food products are "Grain Free." However, the dog food products
contain significant amounts of wheat and chicken, despite label
representations indicating they do not, the suit says.

AMERICAN JOURNEY (PET), LLC operates as an online pet retailer. The
Company offers pet products which includes dry and wet food, toys,
mats, biscuits, vitamins, and supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          Greg Coleman Law PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               -and-

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                  hunter@whitfieldbryson.com


AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Bruce Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Bruce, et
al. v. American Water Works Company, Inc., et al.

On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company, the
Company's Tennessee subsidiary ("TAWC"), experienced a leak in a
36-inch water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations
or interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water
notice.

TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14, 2019, and
restored full water service by the afternoon of September 15, 2019,
with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on September
16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
Service Company, on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or
entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a
result of the Chattanooga incident.

The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil.

In the complaint as filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an
award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and
economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment
of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On November 22, 2019, the Tennessee-American Water Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and, with respect to the Company, a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

After oral argument on the motion to dismiss, on September 18,
2020, the court (i) granted the motion to dismiss the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' negligence claim against all Tennessee-American Water
Defendants, (ii) denied the motion to dismiss the breach of
contract claim against TAWC, (iii) held in abeyance the motion to
dismiss the breach of contract claims against the Company and
Service Company pending a further hearing and (iv) held in abeyance
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

On September 24, 2020, at the request of the Tennessee Plaintiffs,
the court dismissed without prejudice all claims in the Bruce
complaint against the Company and Service Company.

The collective impact of the September 2020 court orders was that
all of the Tennessee Plaintiffs' claims in this complaint were
dismissed, other than the breach of contract claims against TAWC.

On October 16, 2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties
are commencing with discovery.

TAWC and the Company believe that TAWC has meritorious defenses to
the claims raised in this class action complaint, and TAWC is
vigorously defending itself against these allegations.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMERICAN WATER: Jeffries Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jeffries,
et al. v. West Virginia-American Water Company.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in the
City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by West Virginia-American
Water Company, the Company's West Virginia subsidiary ("WVAWC").

The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers. In the early morning
hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a repair, but that same
day, the repair developed a leak.

On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed and service was
restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers,
and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.

The second repair showed signs of leaking but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill.

The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but
approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was completed
safely on June 30, 2015. Water service was fully restored on July
1, 2015 to all customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break. The complaint alleges breach of contract
by WVAWC for failure to supply water, violation of West Virginia
law regarding the sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence
by WVAWC in the design, maintenance and operation of the water
system.

The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.

On February 4, 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. On July 14, 2020,
the Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding certain
liability issues but denying certification of a class to determine
a punitive damages multiplier.

On August 31, 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition
in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate
or remand the Circuit Court's order certifying the issues class.

At the request of the parties, on September 10, 2020, the Circuit
Court ordered the stay of all matters in the class proceeding
pending consideration of this petition.

On December 3, 2020, the Supreme Court of Appeals issued an order
to show cause stating that there are sufficient grounds for oral
argument to consider prohibiting the class certification order.

On January 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals granted a motion
by the Jeffries plaintiffs to remand the case back to the Circuit
Court for further consideration in light of a recent Supreme Court
of Appeals decision issued in another case relating to the class
certification issues raised.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has meritorious defenses
to the claims raised in this class action complaint and WVAWC will
continue to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


APPLE REIT: Court Grants Vergara Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vergara v. Apple REIT
Nine, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02027 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dora
Lizette Irizarry entered an order:

   1. adopting the February 5 Report and Recommendations (R & R)
      Order on Motion to Certify Class;

   2. granting Motion to Certify Class on behalf of:

      "All persons and entities that participated in the A-9
      DRIP between April 8, 2013 through the end of A-9's
      Dividend Reinvestment Plan and received A-9 common stock
      in lieu of the declared cash dividend at a value of $10.25
      per share;"

   3. appointing Steve Vergara as Class Representative; and

   4. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as
      Class Counsel.

To date, no objections have been made to the "R & R" issued on
February 5, 2021 by the Hon. Robert M. Levy, U.S.M.J., and, upon
due consideration and review, the R & R is adopted in its entirety,
says Judge Irizarry.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          Brittany Bowman, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          2 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: LEE@SFCLASSLAW.COM
                  BRITTANY@SFCLASSLAW.COM

Counsel for the Defendant are:

          Aaron Fong Jaroff, Esq.
          Elizabeth F. Edwards, Esq.
          Stanley A. Roberts, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020

ARIZONA: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Tossed in Toomey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russell B Toomey v. State
of Arizona, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00035-RM-LAB (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Rosemary Marquez entered an order:

   1. adopting the Report and Recommendation only to the extent
      it recommends denying the Motion for Preliminary
      Injunction on the grounds that Plaintiff has not met the
      heightened standard for obtaining mandatory preliminary
      injunctive relief, and is otherwise rejected;

   2. denying the motion for preliminary injunction; and

   3. overruling the Plaintiff's Objection; and

   4. overruling the University Defendants' Objection.

On September 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. On November 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge
Bowman issued an R&R recommending that the Court deny the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. The Plaintiff and the University
Defendants filed Objections to the R&R.

The Plaintiff Dr. Russell B. Toomey is a transgendered male. "He
has a male gender identity, but the sex assigned to him at birth
was female." Dr. Toomey has been living as a male since 2003 and
has received medically necessary hormone therapy and chest
reconstruction surgery as treatment for diagnosed gender dysphoria.
Dr. Toomey is employed as an Associate Professor at the University
of Arizona. His health insurance ("the Plan") is a self-funded plan
provided by the State of Arizona. While the Plan provides coverage
for most medically necessary care, including care related to
transsexualism and gender dysphoria such as mental health
counseling and hormone therapy, "gender reassignment surgery" is
excluded from coverage.

Arizona, a southwestern U.S. state, is best known for the Grand
Canyon, the mile-deep chasm carved by the Colorado River.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rCUtkz at no extra charge.[CC]


BACKYARD LAWN: Ceballos Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAM CEBALLOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BACKYARD LAWN MASTER, LLC, dba LAWN
MASTER OUTDOOR LIVING, LLC; SHANE LEATH; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CVRI 2000605, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 8,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00412 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the Public Policy, and the California's
Business and Professions Code including race discrimination,
retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to prevent
discrimination, denial of equal pay, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to keep and
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest breaks, and unfair business
practices.

Backyard Lawn Master, LLC, doing business as Lawn Master Outdoor
Living, LLC, is a carport and pergola builder in Waxahachie, Texas.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         John A. Mavros, Esq.
         Ashton M. Riley, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-2424
         Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
         E-mail: jmavros@fisherphillips.com
                 ariley@fisherphillips.com

BAGELCODE USA: Operates Illegal Casino Game App, Engelbretson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT ENGELBRETSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAGELCODE USA, INC.; GOOGLE LLC;
and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00296 (W.D.
Wash., March 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' operation of the online casino
game app called Club Vegas 2021: New Slots Games & Casino bonuses.
The Club Vegas app is an illegal gambling game because players of
the game wages things of value, such as coins which can be
purchased, and by an element of chance, such as spinning an online
slot machine, are able to obtain additional entertainment and
extend gameplay by winning additional chips, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and the Class gambled when they purchased chips to
wager at the Defendants' online gambling games. They staked money,
in the form of chips purchased with money, at the Defendants' games
of chance in hope of winning additional things of value. As a
result of the Defendants' gambling game Club Vegas, the Plaintiff
and each member of the Class have lost money wagering at the
Defendants' games of chance, added the suit.

Bagelcode USA, Inc. is a global gaming company, headquartered in
Redmond, Washington.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California.

Google Payment Corp. is a provider of in-app payment processing
services, with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
         271 Winslow Way E., #11647
         Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
         Telephone: (206) 424-0234
         E-mail: eric@dralucklaw.com

                - and –

         Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
         Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
         WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
         3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
         Denver, CO 80210
         Telephone: (720) 213-0675
         Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
         E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                 ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

BAJCO ILLINOIS: Regan BIPA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES REGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAJCO ILLINOIS LLC, Case No. 2020 L
000244, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Sangamon
County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois on March 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03064-SEM-TSH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to publicly
provide a retention schedule or guideline for permanently
destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and information;
failing to inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their
biometric identifiers and information were being collected and
stored; failing to inform them in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or
information were being collected, stored, and used; failing to
obtain written releases from them before it collected, used and
stored their biometric identifiers and information; and disclosing
biometric identifier or information without first obtaining consent
for such disclosure.

Bajco Illinois LLC is a business services company based in Ohio.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
                 ohenry@littler.com

               - and –

         Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: pmartin@littler.com

BANK OF AMERICA: All Discovery & Proceedings in Blann Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RHONDA L. BLANN, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-2527-JWB (D. Kan.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas stays all discovery and pretrial
proceedings pending a ruling on the dispositive motion.

The Plaintiff brings the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how she redeemed her home after foreclosure. The parties submitted
a joint case-management report on February 19, 2021, in which they
discussed their views on whether discovery should be stayed pending
a ruling by the presiding U.S. District Judge, John W. Broomes, on
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a
claim. The Plaintiff requests that limited discovery goes forward
now, while the Defendant requests the Court stays discovery pending
Judge Broomes's ruling.

As the Plaintiff notes, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, says
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. However, the Court has recognized
a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
says the motion to dismiss raises multiple, case-dispositive, legal
issues. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiff's claims are barred by
the statute of limitations and are precluded by res judicata or
collateral estoppel. The Defendant also asserts the Plaintiff
failed to adequately plead the elements of her claims.

Judge O'Hara opines that if Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant
on any of these arguments, the action will be dismissed and any
discovery in the interim would have been wasteful and burdensome.
Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss in its
entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action and could
narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the Plaintiff
does not contend she needs discovery in order to adequately respond
to the dispositive motion. Judge O'Hara adds that staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
court and the parties.

The Court, therefore, ordered that (1) all pretrial proceedings in
the case, including discovery and initial disclosures, are stayed
until further order of the Court, and (2) if the case remains
pending after Judge Broomes decides the motion to dismiss, counsel
will confer and submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) planning report to
Judge O'Hara's chambers within five business days of the ruling.
The Court will set a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wffsxewc from Leagle.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Ninth Cir. Affirms in Part Rulings in Degamo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits entitled MILAGROS JUAN DEGAMO, Plaintiff, and MAC
PADUA, in his individual capacity and as the personal
representative of Helen Padua; SUSAN M. PROPIOS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, a national banking association,
Defendant-Appellee, and DEREK WONG; et al., Defendants v. GRACE
AKANA; et al., Movants-Appellants. MILAGROS JUAN DEGAMO; et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
association, Defendant-Appellee v. DANE S. FIELD, Trustee;
ELIZABETH A. KANE, Trustee, Real-party-in-interest-Appellants, and
DEREK WONG; et al., Defendants v. GRACE AKANA; et al., Movants,
Case Nos. 19-15736, 19-15826 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms in part and vacates in part
the district court's rulings.

The case is a putative class action arising out of Defendant Bank's
non-judicial foreclosures of roughly 1,000 Hawaii homeowners'
mortgages in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 global financial
crisis. Putative class representatives Susan Propios and Mac Padua
alleged that the Bank engaged in unlawful practices to reduce
competition at the foreclosure sales so that it could buy the homes
at depressed prices and resell them for a larger profit.

The original named plaintiff and putative class representative,
Milagros Degamo, dismissed her claims by stipulation while the case
was pending in district court. Another named plaintiff and putative
class representative, Helen Padua, passed away during the pendency
of this appeal and this Court substituted Mr. Padua in his capacity
as personal representative.

The Plaintiffs each filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy prior to joining
the case. Because their foreclosure-related claims remained the
property of their bankruptcy estates, the district court dismissed
this case because the Plaintiffs were not the real parties in
interest and lacked prudential standing. It also denied their
motion to accept ratification by or substitution of the bankruptcy
trustees, denied their motion to amend the complaint, and denied as
moot five additional putative class members' motion to intervene.

According to the Appellate Court's Memorandum, the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to accept the bankruptcy trustees' ratification of this action or
to substitute the trustees as named plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs first argue that the relevant inquiry under Rule
17(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is whether the
initial choice in naming the plaintiff was understandable. They
contend that the district court improperly focused on what counsel
knew and did years after they joined as plaintiffs.

Even under that standard, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying substitution or ratification, the Appellate
Court says. The record is clear that the Plaintiffs knew they had
filed for bankruptcy and had viable claims against the Bank when
they joined this suit. They, therefore, knew they were not the real
parties in interest at the outset.

The Plaintiffs next argue that the district court imposed an
affirmative burden to correct the real-party-in-interest problem as
soon as they discovered it. The burden to establish standing is on
the Plaintiffs, according to the Memorandum. This includes ensuring
that the action is prosecuted in the name of the real party in
interest. Though a real-party-in-interest problem is an affirmative
defense, the Bank properly raised this defense when it moved for
judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiffs' argument that the
district court improperly shifted the burden, therefore, lacks
merit.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred when it
reasoned that the bankruptcy trustees needed to formally abandon
their interest in the claims to ratify the Plaintiffs' suit. But
any misunderstanding of the legal requirements for a valid
ratification had no effect on the court's ruling, the Appellate
Court opines. Regardless of the propriety of the trustees'
ratification, the Plaintiffs nevertheless failed to meet the
standard under Rule 17 because the Plaintiffs knew they were not
the real parties in interest at the outset of litigation.

The Appellate Court also holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court found
prejudice because the case had been pending since 2013 and had been
active for nearly two years, yet the Plaintiffs were still
attempting to add new subclasses and factual allegations. The
district court also found that the Plaintiffs' delays caused the
Bank to incur additional expense, impaired its ability to proceed
to trial, and threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of
the case. The Plaintiffs fail to explain why the district court's
prejudice analysis was an abuse of discretion.

The Appellate Court further holds that the district court erred
when it failed to consider the merits of the five putative class
members' motion to intervene. In the class action context, courts
retain jurisdiction to grant intervention even when the named
plaintiffs have been dismissed, citing Kennerly v. United States,
721 F.2d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir. 1983). This rule applies even when a
class has not yet been certified. The district court in this case,
therefore, had jurisdiction and the obligation to consider
intervention.

The Plaintiffs ask the Appellate Court to decide the issue of
intervention as a matter of right in the first instance. But this
determination is most appropriately addressed by the district
court, according to the Memorandum. Resolving these issues will
involve making factual findings and could potentially involve
taking evidence, which the district court is in the best position
to do. Moreover, the proposed intervenors also seek permissive
intervention, which is committed to the broad discretion of the
district court.

The Appellate Court, therefore, remands for consideration of the
putative class members' motion to intervene.

Each party will bear its own costs.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kt7k2s6b from Leagle.com.


BANK OF NEW YORK: All Discovery & Proceedings in McLane Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RONALD McLANE, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, Defendant, Case No. 20-2554-JWB (D. Kan.), the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas stays all discovery and
pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the dispositive motion.

The Plaintiff brings the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how he redeemed his home after foreclosure. The parties submitted a
joint case-management report on February 19, 2021, in which they
discussed their views on whether discovery should be stayed pending
a ruling by the presiding U.S. District Judge, John W. Broomes, on
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a
claim. The Plaintiff requests that limited discovery go forward
now, while the Defendant requests the Court stay discovery pending
Judge Broomes's ruling.

As the Plaintiff notes, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, says
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. However, the Court has recognized
a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
says the motion to dismiss raises multiple, case-dispositive, legal
issues. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiff's claims are barred by
the statute of limitations and are precluded by res judicata or
collateral estoppel. The Defendant also asserts the Plaintiff
failed to adequately plead the elements of his claims.

Judge O'Hara opines that if Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant
on any of these arguments, the action will be dismissed and any
discovery in the interim would have been wasteful and burdensome.
Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss in its
entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action and could
narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the Plaintiff
does not contend he needs discovery in order to adequately respond
to the dispositive motion. Judge O'Hara adds that staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
court and the parties.

The Court, therefore, ordered that (1) all pretrial proceedings in
this case, including discovery and initial disclosures, are stayed
until further order of the Court, and (2) if the case remains
pending after Judge Broomes decides the motion to dismiss, the
counsel will confer and submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) planning
report to Judge O'Hara's chambers within five business days of the
ruling. The Court will set a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zfcwsbx7 from Leagle.com.


BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, and all others
similarly situated, v. GREGORY SCOTT STEPHEN, BARNSTORMERS
BASKETBALL, INC. (BBI) d/b/a BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL OF IOWA,
AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., and ADIDAS
AMERICA, INC, Case No. e 3:20-cv-00005-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class
certification:

   "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
   against Defendants BBI and Stephen for damages resulting from
   their victimization/privacy invasion by Stephen, facilitated
   and permitted by BBI."

This case is about the Defendants multiple failures to protect
youth athletes from known risks of harm. Those specific failures
are set out in Plaintiff’s Petition at Law. As a direct and
proximate cause of their negligence, the Defendants facilitated and
permitted Defendant Gregory Stephen to use his position of
authority to sexually exploit minor BBI participants.

According to the complaint, Jamie Johnson first met Greg Stephen in
2005 at a youth basketball tournament. At the time, Stephen was
coaching his own youth boys club basketball team known as the Iowa
Mavericks. After deciding Greg seemed "like a nice enough guy,"
without performing a formal interview, checking references, or
having any formal policies or procedures in place to ensure Stephen
did not pose a risk to BBI youth participants, Johnson asked
Stephen to join BBI to coach and help run the program. Stephen
agreed. Even though there was overwhelming evidence that Stephen
posed a risk to BBI participants, Johnson maintained the employment
relations with Stephen until he fired Stephen in 2018 upon learning
of the criminal investigation.

On February 18, 2018, Monticello Police were contacted by Stephen's
former brother-in- law, V.E. While providing construction services
at Stephen's home in Monticello, Iowa, V.E. found a black 1-inch by
1-inch by 1-inch cube, which he identified as a 32-gigabit USB
covert recording device. Upon inspection of the contents of the
device, V.E. discovered video files of three (3) nude adolescent
boys in a hotel bathroom. The boys were current players for the
Iowa Barnstormers Basketball. These videos showed the boys
disrobing and entering/exiting a hotel bathroom shower.

BBI is a non-profit corporation founded/organized under the laws of
the State of Iowa in 2004 with its principal place of business
located at 1235 Deerfield Drive, North Liberty, Johnson County,
Iowa, 52317. BBI fields club basketball teams for local youth
athletes ranging from 4th through 11th grade.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3t0Zwvwat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guy R. Cook, Esq.
          Benjamin T. Erickson, Esq.
          Laura N. Martino, Esq.
          500 E. Court Ave., Ste. 200
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: 515/245-4300
          Facsimile: 515/245-4452
          E-mail: gcook@grefesidney.com
                  lmartino@grefesidney.com
                  berickson@grefesidney.com

The Defendant BBI is represented by:

          Martha L. Shaff, Esq.
          Brandon W.Lobberecht, Esq.
          BETTY, NEUMAN & MCMAHON, P.L.C.
          1900 East 54 th Street
          Davenport, IA 52807-2708
          E-mail: martha.shaff@bettylawfirm.com
                  brandon.lobberechtl@bettylawfirm.com

The Defendant Adidas America, Inc. is represented by:

          Matthew A. Levin, Esq.
          Stanton Gallegos, Esq.
          MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
          1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
          Portland, OR 97201
          E-mail: MattLevin@MarkowtizHerbold.com
                  StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com

               - and -

          Connie Alt, Esq.
          Molly Parker, Esq.
          SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL , P.L.C.
          115 3rd St. SE, No. 500
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          E-mail: cma@shuttleworthlaw.com
                  mmp@shuttleworthlaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Amateur Athletic Union of the
United States, Inc.

          Jeffrey L. Goodman, Esq.
          Nicole L. Keller, Esq.
          GOODMAN LAW, P.C.
          1501 42nd Street, Suite 300
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          E-mail: jeff@golawpc.com
                  nicole@golawpc.com

BEECH NUT NUTRITION: Loggins Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech Nut Nutrition
Corporation. The case is styled as Jessica Loggins, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Beech Nut Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 6:21-cv-00442-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla., March 9,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Charles Wright, Esq.
          WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
          301 Clematis St, Suite 3000
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 515-1400
          Fax: (561) 515-1401
          Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com


BILGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Antonio Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MELESIO ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BILGE INC. (D/B/A SIP SAK); and MELISSA
YEGEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01871 (Mar. 3, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Antonio was employed by the Defendant as delivery
worker.

Bilge Inc. owns and operates a Turkish restaurant located at New
York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


BLOCK.ONE: Bid for Alternative Service of Process in Williams OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHASE WILLIAMS AND WILLIAM ZHANG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BLOCK.ONE, BRENDAN BLUMER, and DANIEL LARIMER,
Defendants, and CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC and JOHNNY HONG,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BLOCK.ONE, BRENDAN BLUMER, DANIEL LARIMER, IAN GRIGG,
and BROCK PIERCE, Defendants, Case Nos. 1:20-cv-2809-LAK,
1:20-cv-3829-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants Crypto Assets Opportunity
Fund, LLC's Ex Parte Motion for Alternate Service of Process as to
the Amended Complaint on Defendant Brendan Blumer.

Pursuant to Crypto's Ex Parte Motion, Memorandum of Law in support
of the Ex-Parte Motion, and the Declaration of Ievgeniia P.
Vatrenko and exhibits attached thereto, and due diligence having
been had thereon, the Plaintiff requests that the Court grants an
order deeming:

   (1) service on Defendant block.one's counsel as proper service
       on Blumer;

   (2) personal service upon Blumer's mother as proper service on
       Blumer;

   (3) service at Blumer's place of business as proper service on
       Blumer; and

   (4) service via email and social media as proper service on
       Blumer.

The Court ruled that the Motion is granted; and service of the
Amended Complaint upon Blumer is authorized pursuant to Rule 4(f)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nunc pro tunc.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/czfcrf68 from Leagle.com.


BOISE SCHOOL: Court Junks Zeyen Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-BLW (D.
Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order that:

   -- the Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied;

   -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied;

   -- the Plaintiffs shall be allowed one more attempt to file a
      motion to certify class;

   -- Counsel are directed to contact the Court's Clerk Jamie
      Gearhart (jamie_gearhart@id.uscourts.gov) to schedule a
      conference with the Law Clerk to set a schedule for the
      filing of that motion and any logistical issues;

   -- the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
      denied; and

   -- the plaintiffs' motion to strike is denied.

The Court said, "The definition of the proposed class does not meet
the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) because it fails to
specify the categories of fees sought, and fails to show a
sufficient similarity of interest between named plaintiffs and
proposed class members. The Court will accordingly deny the motion
to certify class filed by plaintiffs."

This is a class action challenging fees charged by school districts
in contravention of the Idaho Constitution's requirement that
education be free. The plaintiffs, who have students attending
schools in the Pocatello and Bonneville School Districts, seek to
proceed as class representatives of all patrons -- that is, all
students and parents -- in 115 school districts and charter schools
in the state of Idaho.

The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho. The district was founded in 1865 under
the auspices of Idaho Territory.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, decision and order dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OiyHUP
at no extra charge.[CC]

BOK FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix 401k Plan Related Suit vs. Unit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit related to BOKF, NA 401k
Plan, is pending.

On March 7, 2020, three former employees sued BOKF, NA, the Plan
Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment
Management, Inc., a subsidiary of BOKF, NA, alleging that the
Defendants included proprietary investment products as investment
options in the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, whose fees were too high and
performance too low, for the purpose of earning fees.

The action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
Plan Participants.

The action is pending on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

BOK FINANCIAL: CARES Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative
class action suit initiated by an accounting firm against BOKF, NA,
related to CARES Act, has been dismissed.

On May 12, 2020, an accounting firm filed a putative class action
in the District Court of Colorado alleging that BOKF, NA and other
national banks failed to pay the agents of borrowers making
application through the Bank to the Small Business Administration
for Paycheck Protection Program (CARES Act) loans.

The action has now been dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.



BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
subsidiary BOKF, NA, continues to defend class action suits related
to extended overdraft fees charged by the bank.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.

On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas
action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument
on October 8, 2019.

On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action. The District Court
dismissed the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New
Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Putative Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action
in New Jersey initiated by two bondholders, is still stayed.

On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action remains stayed
with no current deadlines pending. On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA
was sued in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19
bondholders alleging BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale
of securities by the principals. The Tulsa County District Court
Action is pending on BOKF, NA's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
Third Amended Petition.

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

CAST PARTS: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAST PARTS, INC. d/b/a CONSOLIDATION
PRECISION PRODUCTS, a corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08428 (Cal. Sup. Ct., March 3, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act for their alleged violations of
various provisions of the California Labor Code and the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of assembler from March 14,
2001 to July 6, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant deprived him and other
similarly situated employees of uninterrupted 30 minutes meal
periods for work periods of at least 5 hours and 10 minutes rest
periods for work periods of 4 hours or major fractions; failed to
compensate them for all hours worked, including overtime wages at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek; failed to provide them with timely accurate
itemized wage statements; and failed to pay them all earned
compensation at separation employment within the time constraints
imposed by applicable laws.

The Plaintiff sent notice to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency through their website and to the Defendant by certified mail
concerning the Defendant's violations. However, the LWDA allegedly
did not provide notice of its intention to investigate the
Defendant's violations within 65 calendar days of the July 15, 2020
Notice.

Cast Parts, Inc. d/b/a Consolidation Precision Products is a
manufacturer for airplane components, engines, and castings in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 92606
          Tel: (818) 507-8525
          Fax: (818) 507-8588


CDM FEDERAL: Ali Employment Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD ALI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION and
CDM SMITH INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05008, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 9,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00775 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and Class members overtime and spread-of-hours
premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation is construction engineering
company based in Fairfax, Virginia.

CDM Smith Inc. is an engineering and construction company based in
Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
         Melinda Arbuckle, 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

                - and –

         Carlo A. C. de Oliveira, Esq.
         COOPER ERVING & SAVAGE LLP
         39 North Pearl Street, Fourth Floor
         Albany, NY 12207
         Telephone: (518) 449-3900
         Facsimile: (518) 432-3111
         E-mail: Cdeoliveira@coopererving.com

CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Jenkins BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASMINE JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CENVEO WORLDWIDE LIMITED, Case No.
2021-CH-00308, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01346 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Cenveo Worldwide Limited is an envelope manufacturing company based
in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Scott M. Gilbert, Esq.
         POLSINELLI PC
         150 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 819-1900
         E-mail: sgilbert@polsinelli.com

CITYMORTGAGE INC: All Discovery & Proceedings in Morton Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling in the lawsuit
titled KEITH MORTON, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20-2556-JWB (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiff brings the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how he redeemed his home after foreclosure. The parties submitted a
joint case-management report on February 19, 2021, in which they
discussed their views on whether discovery should be stayed pending
a ruling by the presiding U.S. District Judge, John W. Broomes, on
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a
claim. The Plaintiff requests that limited discovery goes forward
now, while the Defendant requests the Court stays discovery pending
Judge Broomes's ruling.

For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion.

As the Plaintiff notes, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, says
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. However, the Court has recognized
a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
opines that the motion to dismiss raises multiple,
case-dispositive, legal issues. The Defendant asserts the
Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and are
precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The Defendant
also asserts the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements
of his claims.

Judge O'Hara opines that if Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant
on any of these arguments, the action will be dismissed and any
discovery in the interim would have been wasteful and burdensome.
Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss in its
entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action and could
narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the Plaintiff
does not contend he needs discovery in order to adequately respond
to the dispositive motion. Judge O'Hara adds that staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
Court and the parties.

The Court, therefore, ordered that (1) all pretrial proceedings in
the case, including discovery and initial disclosures, are stayed
until further order of the Court, and (2) if the case remains
pending after Judge Broomes decides the motion to dismiss, the
counsel will confer and submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) planning
report to Judge O'Hara's chambers within five business days of the
ruling. The Court will set a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tb7r3mxn from Leagle.com.


CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DALIT COHEN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLINIQUE LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01853 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising
on its Clinique Cosmetics by claiming the Clinique Cosmetics
contain probiotic or microbiome technology (the "Probiotics
Claims").

According to the complaint the Defendant markets and sells the
Clinique Cosmetics as cosmetics containing "probiotic technology."
However, the Clinique Cosmetics do not contain probiotics because
the microbial derived ingredients assigned the "probiotic" moniker
are purchased in a dead state. Also, the preservatives, i.e.
antimicrobial chemicals, employed in the Clinique Cosmetics would
render any probiotic cultures inert and therefore useless, the suit
says.

Clinique Laboratories, Inc. was founded in 1973. The company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of prescription
drugs, proprietary drugs, and toiletries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

               -and-

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


CLUBS OF AMERICA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clubs Of America,
Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Clubs Of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02069 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021).

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

Clubs Of America -- https://www.greatclubs.com/ -- is the original
Gift of the Month Club service since 1994 delivering Beer, Wine,
Flower, Fruit, Cigar, Coffee, Chocolate, and Pizza.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTO INC: Hatcher Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIA HATCHER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. COLLECTO, INC., doing business as EOS CCA, Case No.
1:19-cv-02079-SB (D. Del.), the Court entered an order that the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied without
prejudice.

If Hatcher wishes to file an amended motion for class
certification, she must do so within 30 days of this order, the
Court says.

Collecto operates as a debt management and recovery resource
company. The Company offers receivables collection services for
banks, colleges and universities, student loan lenders, and
telecommunications companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cmGMjv at no extra charge.[CC]

COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS: Faces Cummings Labor Code Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09262 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and
double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and
p3rovide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned
on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff worked as a case manager from on or about December
19, 2019 until on or about July 12, 2020.

A Community of Friends is a non-profit affordable housing developer
based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
                       
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

COPPER RIVER: Aparicio Consumer Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EVELIN APARICIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COPPER RIVER SALON, LLC; BARBARA
WEIGAND; ROBERT CUMMING; VANYA TYRRELL; JOHN DOES #1-5, and JOHN
DOES #6-10, Case No. MER-L-000284-21, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on March 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-04447 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged legal and equitable
fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, restitution, and violations of the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the
Consumer Fraud Act.

Copper River Salon, LLC is a hair salon in Princeton, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Ola A. Nunez, Esq.
         SCHOEMAN UPDIKE KAUFMAN & GERBER LLP
         155 Willowbrook Blvd., Ste. 300
         Wayne, NJ 07470
         Telephone: (973) 256-9000
         Facsimile: (973) 256-9001

CORNERSTONE APPAREL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Apparel,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Young, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. Cornerstone Apparel, Inc.
doing business as: Papaya Clothing, a California corporation; Does
1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00422-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
March 10, 2021).

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

CornerStone Apparel, Inc. -- https://www.papayaclothing.com/ -- is
an apparel & fashion company based out of Commerce,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


CREE INC: Wedra Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE WEDRA,
individually on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CREE, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)
      (3):

      "All persons in New York who purchased A-type 60 watt and
      100 watt Cree LED Lightbulbs for end use, and not resale,
      during the period from April 2013 to present;"

   3. appointing herself as representative for the members of
      the Class; and

   4. appointing The Sultzer Law Group P.C., Pearson, Simon &
      Warshaw LLP, Audet & Partners LLP, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
      LLP and Levin, Sedrin & Berman LLP as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Cree is a market-leading innovator of semiconductor products for
power and radio-frequency (RF) applications and lighting-class
LEDs.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class
dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kYBBd8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Mindy Dolgoff, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  dolgoffm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  awarren@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

CRM DEVELOPMENT: Decuir Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DECUIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY d/b/a CRM COMPANIES,
and DROPPING BIRD 16, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00040-GNS
(W.D. Ky., March 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a night shift
employee in Bowling Green, Kentucky from approximately December of
2019 until November of 2020.

CRM Development Company, doing business as CRM Companies and
Dropping Bird 16, L.L.C., is an owner and operator of 17 Raising
Cane's restaurants in Kentucky and South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Anne L. Gilday, Esq.
         THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC
         606 Philadelphia Street
         Covington, KY 41011
         Telephone: (859) 578-9130
         Facsimile: (859) 578-1032
         E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com

                - and –

         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

DENNIS GROSS: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Due August 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mocha Gunaratna v. Dennis
Gross Cosmetology LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-MWF-GJS (C.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order:
setting class certification dates as follows:

               EVENT                                DATE

   Deadline to complete fact discovery         August 11, 2021
   for purposes of Class Certification
   and for purposes of the Named Plaintiff's
   Individual Claims; last day to file
   Motion for Class Certification and
   to produce expert reports and necessary
   disclosures in support of Class
   Certification:

   Deadline to complete depositions and        October 12, 2021
   document production of Plaintiff's
   experts re: Class Certification:

   Last day to file Opposition to Motion       November 10, 2021
   for Class Certification, and to
   produce expert reports and necessary
   disclosures in support of Opposition
   to Motion for Class Certification;
   last day to file Motion for Summary
   Judgment directed to the Named
   Plaintiff's Claims:

   Deadline to complete depositions and        January 10, 2022
   document production of Defendant's
   experts re Class Certification:

   Last day to file Reply in Support           February 9, 2022
   of Motion for Class Certification;
   last day to file Opposition to Motion
   for Summary Judgment directed to the
   Named Plaintiff's Claims:

   Last day to file Daubert Motions for        February 24, 2022
   Class Certification Experts"

   Last day to file Oppositions to             March 28, 2022
   Daubert Motions for Class Certification
   Experts:

   Last day to file Replies in support of      April 12, 2022
   Daubert Motions for Class Certification
   Experts:

   Pre-hearing Conference re format of         May 2, 2022 at
   Motion for Class Certification hearing;
   identification of witnesses, exhibits,
   objections, etc.; time of any
   Daubert hearing:

   Hearing on Motion for Class                 May 23, 2022 at
   Certification and Motion for
   Summary Judgment Directed to the
   Named Plaintiff's

Dennis Gross offers beauty products.

A copy of the civil minutes -- general dated March 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tc15H3 at no
extra charge.[CC]

DIGNITY COMMUNITY: Lagman Seeks Unpaid Wages for Health Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON LAGMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE, DIGNITY HEALTH, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21GDCV00347
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay
overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all
wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee until on or about
October 9, 2020.

Dignity Community Care is a single health care organization formed
with Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI) in the U.S.

Dignity Health is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit
corporation that operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities
in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
                       
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Iliff Class Suit Goes to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUSAN ILIFF; BETTY LEES; LINDA COBB; NANCY
LAWRENCE; PATRICIA JOHNSON; GWENNETH LARSON; PATRICIA NOEL;
SHARIFAH DOYLE-EL; and HOME LINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; ST.
ANTHONY LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT II, LLC; ST. ANTHONY LEASED
HOUSING ASSOCIATES II, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ST. ANTHONY LEASED
HOUSING ASSOCIATES II, LLC; COON RAPIDS LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
IV, LLC; COON RAPIDS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP; COON
RAPIDS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT VI, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES VI, LLLP;
ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES VI, LLC; CRYSTAL LEASED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT I, LLC; CRYSTAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I, LLLP;
CRYSTAL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I, LLC; COTTAGE GROVE LEASED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT I, LLC; COTTAGE GROVE LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES
I, LLLP; COTTAGE GROVE LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I, LLC; WOODBURY
LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT II, LLC; WOODBURY LEASED HOUSING
ASSOCIATES II, LLLP; WOODBURY LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES II, LLC;
MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IX, LLC; MINNEAPOLIS LEASED
HOUSING ASSOCIATES IX, LLLP, MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES
IX, LLC; MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IV, LLC;
MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IX, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IX,
LLLP; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IX, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT X, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES X,
LLLP; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES X, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT VIII, LLC; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES
VIII, LLLP; ST. PAUL LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES VIII, LLC; CHAMPLIN
LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IV, LLC; CHAMPLIN LEASED HOUSING
ASSOCIATES IV, LLLP; CHAMPLIN LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LLC;
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT III, LLC; COLUMBIA
HEIGHTS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLLP; COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLC; LEXINGTON LEASED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT I, LLC; LEXINGTON LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I, LLLP;
LEXINGTON LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I, LLC; BLAINE LEASED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT III, LLC; BLAINE LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLLP;
BLAINE LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLC; SPRING LAKE PARK LEASED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT I, LLC; SPRING LAKE PARK LEASED HOUSING
ASSOCIATES I, LLLP; SPRING LAKE PARK LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES I,
LLC; MINNETONKA LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT II, LLC; MINNETONKA
LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES II, LLLP; MINNETONKA LEASED HOUSING
ASSOCIATES II, LLC; ST. CLOUD LEASED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT III, LLC;
ST. CLOUD LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLLP; ST. CLOUD LEASED
HOUSING ASSOCIATES III, LLC; DOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT & ACQUISITION,
LLC; DOMINIUM, INC.; DOMINIUM HOLDINGS I, LLC; and DOMINIUM
HOLDINGS II, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-00649, was removed from the
Hennepin County District Court, State of Minnesota, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:21-cv-00649 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Internal Revenue Code also known as the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit Program by misrepresenting development costs to the
government for the purposes of receiving low-income tax credits
relating to parking construction costs as part of calculating its
eligible basis for tax credits for various development projects.

Dominium Management Services, LLC is a real estate management
company in Minnesota.

St. Anthony Leased Housing Development II, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, Limited Partnership is a
housing development company in Minnesota.

St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Coon Rapids Leased Housing Development IV, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Coon Rapids Leased Housing Associates IV, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Coon Rapids Leased Housing Associates IV, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Development VI, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates VI, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates VI, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Crystal Leased Housing Development I, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Crystal Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Crystal Leased Housing Associates I, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Cottage Grove Leased Housing Development I, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Cottage Grove Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Cottage Grove Leased Housing Associates I, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Woodbury Leased Housing Development II, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Woodbury Leased Housing Associates II, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Woodbury Leased Housing Associates II, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Development IX, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IX, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IX, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Development IV, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IV, Limited Partnership is a
housing development company in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IV, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Development IX, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates IX, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates IX, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Development X, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates X, LLLP is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates X, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Development VIII, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates VIII, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Paul Leased Housing Associates VIII, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Champlin Leased Housing Development IV, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Champlin Leased Housing Associates IV, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Champlin Leased Housing Associates IV, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Columbia Heights Leased Housing Development III, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Columbia Heights Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Columbia Heights Leased Housing Associates III, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Lexington Leased Housing Development I, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Lexington Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Lexington Leased Housing Associates I, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Blaine Leased Housing Development III, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLC is a housing development
company in Minnesota.

Spring Lake Park Leased Housing Development I, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Spring Lake Park Leased Housing Associates I, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Spring Lake Park Leased Housing Associates I, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minnetonka Leased Housing Development II, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minnetonka Leased Housing Associates II, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Minnetonka Leased Housing Associates II, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Cloud Leased Housing Development III, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Cloud Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

St. Cloud Leased Housing Associates III, LLC is a housing
development company in Minnesota.

Dominium Development & Acquisition, LLC is a real estate management
services company in Minnesota.

Dominium, Inc. is a housing development company in Minnesota.

Dominium Holdings I, LLC is a housing development company in
Minnesota.

Dominium Holdings II, LLC is a housing development company in
Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Thomas H. Boyd, Esq.
         Matthew R. McBride, Esq.
         Quin C. Seiler, Esq.
         Olivia M. Cooper, Esq.
         WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.
         225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 604-6400
         E-mail: tboyd@winthrop.com
                 mmcbride@winthrop.com
                 qseiler@winthrop.com
                 ocooper@winthrop.com

EAGLE SECURITY: Macias Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR MACIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; LINA KAMEL;
MOHSEN KAMEL; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV09233 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 8, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked,
failure to pay missed meal and rest periods, failure to provide
wage statements, failure to pay due wages upon separation of
employment, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard on or
around December 2019 to August 18, 2020.

Eagle Security Services, Inc. is a security services provider doing
business in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

EASTERN WISCONSIN WATER: Bid to Strike Class in Kapp Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KAPP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EASTERN
WISCONSIN WATER CONDITIONING CO and UNCO DATA SYSTEMS INC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00286-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
entered an order denying the defendants' Motion to Strike Class.

The Court said, "The question at this stage is only whether it is
plausible that, with the benefit of discovery, the plaintiff will
be able to demonstrate that a class action is appropriate. Only if
there is no plausible way that the plaintiff will ever be able to
show that a class action is appropriate would it be appropriate to
grant the defendants' motion to strike. In arguing that Kapp's
class allegations should be stricken, the defendants are arguing
there is no way Kapp can show a class is appropriate because some
of the calls to landlines might have been to home businesses.
However, "[t]he majority of courts to have considered this issue
have concluded that factual questions related to personal use, as
opposed to commercial use, do not prevent certification of consumer
protection class actions." The possibility that certain prospective
class members ultimately might not be eligible for relief under the
statute is not an uncommon nor insurmountable problem in consumer
litigation. In sum, based on the allegations in the complaint it is
plausible that Kapp will be able to show that a class action is
appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). Whether a class action will
ultimately prove appropriate is a matter the court cannot decide at
this time."

Plaintiff Aaron Kapp has filed a class action complaint alleging
that Defendant Unco Data Systems, Inc., an agent of Defendant
Eastern Wisconsin Water Conditioning Co., made prerecorded
telemarketing calls to him (and other class members) without his
prior written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The defendants previously moved to partially
dismiss Kapp's Third Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to
strike certain contained allegations.

A copy of the Court's decision and order dated March 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qBUjJ4 at no
extra charge.[CC]

ENBRIDGE INC: Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot in Robertson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTSON v. ENBRIDGE
(U.S.) INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01080 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
William S. Stickman entered an order denying as moot the motion to
certify class.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Enbridge operates as an oil and gas transporting company. The
Company provides crude oil and liquids transportation systems,
gathering, processing, and storage of natural gas.[CC]

EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: O'Donnell Appeals Court's Entry of Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, d Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company, is pending.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Financial, which
were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy
and who suffered injury as a result thereof.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
Equitable Financial implemented the volatility management strategy
in violation of applicable law. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages
individually and on a classwide basis, and costs and disbursements,
including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted Equitable
Financial's motion to dismiss the complaint.

In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April
2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the
case to Connecticut state court.

In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
Equitable Financial's notification to the court that it would not
file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in
December 2018 to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District
of Stamford.

In December 2018, Equitable Financial sought dismissal of the
complaint by filing a motion to strike, which the court granted in
August 2019. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint in
September 2019.

Equitable Financial filed a motion for entry of judgment in October
2019.

On August 3, 2020, the court granted Equitable Financial's motion
for entry of judgment. In August 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

Equitable Holdings said, "We are vigorously defending this
matter."

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.


EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit Over COI Rate Increase Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend litigation over  COI rate increase related
suit.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
owners of universal life policies subject to Equitable Financial's
COI rate increase.

In early 2016, Equitable Financial raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.


A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Financial in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute.

Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.

In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision
granting in part Brach Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The court certified nationwide breach of contract and Section 4226
classes, and a New York State Section 349 class. Equitable
Financial petitioned for discretionary appellate review of that
decision, which petition was denied.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against Equitable Financial and have been coordinated
with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.

They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions
are also pending against Equitable Financial in New York state
court.

Equitable Financial is vigorously defending each of these matters.
Obligations under Funding Agreements

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.

EVVI RESTAURANT: Meyer et al. Sue Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PENNY MEYER, EMILY SCHMOELE and PATENE WIGGINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. EVVI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-cv-00202 (W.D. Tex., March 3, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
employees - Plaintiff Meyer as a Server Manager from February 2020
until January 2021, Plaintiff Schmoele as a Server from March 2020
until August 2020, and Plaintiff Wiggins as a Server Team Lead from
March 2020 until January 2021.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other servers regularly worked
hours for which they were not compensated, approximately 5 hours
off the clock each week. Specifically, the Defendant instructed
them not to clock in until the first customer arrived at the
restaurant, thereby spending 2 hours cleaning the restaurant and
rolling silverware which went unrecorded and uncompensated; and to
clock out at the end of their shift or after the last customer
left, but required them to complete additional tasks such as
cleaning and closing the restaurant after they had clocked out. As
a result, the Defendant deprived them of regular wages and overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate for all hours they
worked.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated servers to
recover unpaid minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime
premiums for all hours worked over 40 in any week, as well as
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Evvi Restaurant Group, LLC operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


EXQUISITO RESTAURANT: Villegas Slams Tip Credit, Denied OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Garcia Villegas, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Exquisito Restaurant Inc., Compas 1542
Corp. and Argenedis Nunez, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00720, (E.D.
N.Y. February 10, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Dominican cuisine restaurants under the trade
name "Exquisito" in Long Island City and in Brooklyn where Villegas
worked as a delivery person. He claims to have generally worked in
excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of
40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for
workdays exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip credit for all
hours worked despite requiring him to work non-tipped duties for
hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. He
also claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


FABFITFUN INC: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheryl Gaston v.
FabFitFun, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-09534-RGK-E (C.D. ), the Hon.
Judge R. Gary klausner, entered an order re: joint stipulation to
stay case pending final approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs have filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. In light of this Motion, the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class are denied without prejudice as moot.

FabFitFun retails curated boxes of health and beauty products to
its customers through an online subscription service.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 26, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cfo1hL at no
extra charge.[CC]


FIDELITY BANK: All Discovery and Proceedings in Ford Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HEATHER FORD, et al., individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. FIDELITY
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-2553-JWB (D. Kan.), the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas stays all discovery and
pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the dispositive motion.

The Plaintiffs bring thw proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how the Plaintiffs redeemed their homes after foreclosure. The
parties submitted a joint case-management report on February 19,
2021, in which they discussed their views on whether discovery
should be stayed pending a ruling by the presiding U.S. District
Judge, John W. Broomes, on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs request that
limited discovery goes forward now, while the Defendant requests
the Court stays discovery pending Judge Broomes's ruling.

For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion.

As the Plaintiffs note, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, says
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. However, the Court has recognized
a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
finds that the motion to dismiss raises multiple, case-dispositive,
legal issues. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the statute of limitations, and are precluded by res
judicata and collateral estoppel. The Defendant also asserts the
Plaintiffs lack standing and failed to adequately plead the
elements of their claims.

If Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant on any of these
arguments, the action will be dismissed and any discovery in the
interim would have been wasteful and burdensome, Judge O'Hara
opines. Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss
in its entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action
and could narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs do not contend they need discovery in order to
adequately respond to the dispositive motion. Staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
Court and the parties, Judge O'Hara adds.

The Court, therefore, ruled that:

   1. all pretrial proceedings in the case, including discovery
      and initial disclosures, are stayed until further order of
      the Court; and

   2. if the case remains pending after Judge Broomes decides the
      motion to dismiss, counsel will confer and submit a Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(f) planning report to Judge O'Hara's chambers
      within five business days of the ruling. The Court will set
      a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43ywcdza from Leagle.com.


FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Class Status Filing Extended to August 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN BERNARDEZ and TAWANNA
PITTMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC d/b/a) MEDASSIST, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00613-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Regina S.
Edwards entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to
Amend Discovery and Briefing Deadlines as follows:

   1. Fact discovery shall be extended up to and including July
      16, 2021.

   2. The Defendant shall file its answer or other responsive
      pleading to Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective and Class
      Action Complaint within 30 days of its filing by the Clerk
      of Court.

   3. The deadline for the Parties to file
      certification/decertification motions on Plaintiffs' FLSA
      claims shall be extended to August 13, 2021. Responses
      shall be filed by September 10, 2021, and replies shall be
      filed by September 24, 2021.

   4. If no such motions are filed, the deadline for Plaintiffs
      to file a motion for Rule 23 class certification on
      Plaintiffs' state law claims shall be August 27, 2021. The
      Defendant's response shall be filed by September 24, 2021,
      and Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by October 8, 2021.

   5. If a motion for certification or decertification on
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are filed, the deadline for
      Plaintiffs to file a motion for Rule 23 class
      certification shall be October 1, 2021. The Defendant's
      response shall be filed by October 29, 2021, and
      Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by November 12, 2021.

   6. If no motion for certification, decertification, or Rule
      23 class certification is filed, the deadline for
      dispositive motions shall be September 24, 2021. Responses
      shall be filed by October 22, 2021, and replies shall be
      filed by November 5, 2021. If Plaintiffs move for final
      collective action certification, Defendant moves for
      decertification of the FLSA collective, and/or Plaintiffs
      move for Rule 23 class certification, the deadline for
      dispositive motions is 30 days after the Court's ruling on
      the aforesaid motion(s).

Firstsource Solutions operates as a real estate services. The
Company provides management and consultancy services on a contract
or fee basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OInGw2 at no extra charge.[CC]

FIVE GUYS: Lusk Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; ENCORE FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00762-AWI-EPG
(E.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 29, 2021
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a settlement class consisting of:

      "All persons who have been employed in California by
      the Defendants as hourly-paid or "non-exempt" employees,
      whether directly or through an employment agency or a
      professional services organization, at any time during the
      period from August 22, 2013 through the date that the
      Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement;"

   2. preliminarily approving the parties' proposed class action
      settlement;

   3. appointing himself as the Class Representative, his
      counsel as the Class Counsel, and Phoenix Settlement
      Administrators as the Settlement Administrator;

   4. approving the forms of Class Notice and proposed timeline
      for administration; and

   5. scheduling a hearing on the final approval of the
      Settlement for September 24, 2021 or as soon thereafter as
      the Court is available.

      Gross Settlement Amount and Distributions:

      -- The Defendants shall pay a maximum aggregate Gross
         Settlement Amount of $1,200,000.00.

      -- The Gross Settlement Amount covers: (1) the Class
         Representative payment of $15,000.00 to Plaintiff in
         compensation for having prosecuted the action and
         undertaken the risk of payment of costs in the event
         this matter had not been successfully concluded.

      -- Settlement Payment paid to Class Members for their
         class claims PAGA Payment in the amount of $100,000.00
         to be allocated to claims for civil penalties under
         PAGA, which includes $75,000.00 awarded to the State of
         California, subject to Court approval, and $25,000.00
         awarded to Qualified Claimants.

      -- The Class Members' respective shares of any applicable
         payroll taxes (including Defendants' respective shares
         of any applicable employer payroll taxes) attributable
         to any payments under the Settlement.

      -- The Class Counsel Award, consisting of attorneys' fees
         not to exceed $300,000.00 (twenty-five percent (25%) of
         the Gross Settlement Amount), plus costs not to exceed
         $20,000.00, to compensate Class Counsel for all work
         performed thus far and all work remaining to be
         performed in connection with the Settlement, including
         without limitation documenting and administering the
         Settlement and securing Court approval.

      -- The fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator,
         not to exceed $30,000.00.

This class action was filed by Plaintiff on May 2, 2017 in Kings
County Superior Court. The complaint alleges violation of
California Civil Code by failing to timely pay all final wages. On
June 3, 2017, the Defendants removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On
August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The FAC
alleges an additional cause of action for civil penalties under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his initial Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the class action settlement. On May 28,
2019, the Court took the matter under submission without oral
argument. On December 23, 2019, the Court denied the Plaintiff's
motion and identified several issues that the Parties needed to
address.

Five Guys is an American fast casual restaurant chain focused on
hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries, and headquartered in
Lorton, Virginia, an unincorporated part of Fairfax County.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t6AY46
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLO HEALTH: Faces Chen Suit Over Medical Information Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLO HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01485 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 2, 2021) alleges violation of the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant tracked, collected, and
shared the Plaintiff's personal information to third parties. The
personal information was provided to these third parties despite
the Defendant promising users that it would keep their health data
private. The collection and sharing of Plaintiff's private health
data presents an egregious invasion of the Plaintiff's privacy.
Furthermore, the transfer of data by the Defendant to third parties
harmed the Plaintiff by, among other things, diminishing the value
of the Plaintiff's personal information and the privacy violation
caused when the extracted data is used to target and profile the
Plaintiff with unwanted and harmful content, the suit says.

The Defendant had the affirmative duty to safeguard consumers'
device information and private health information and, at the very
minimum, to disclose the access, collection, and dissemination of
consumers' data. The Defendant failed to fulfill such duties and in
fact misrepresented that the data would be safeguarded, alleges the
suit.

Flo Health, Inc. provides women's health mobile application
services. The Company offers AI-powered women's health platform
that encompasses accurate cycle predictions, personalized daily
health insights, and secure community of experts and peers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA: Boatman Seeks Certification of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rayvon Boatman v. Emily
Salema, Donald Sawyer, EMG-Board members of (FCCC), WellPath
Recovery Solutions SVPPD, Geo, CCRS, and DCF, Case No.
3:21-cv-00193-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting certification of class action status, under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 23(a):

   -- The plaintiff and class, and the class members include all
      residents at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC)
      consisting of several hundred, and approximately 545
      resident detainees civilly committed and non-committed
      residents.

   -- The residents-Class members consists of also special
      housing at the (FCCC).

   -- The Class also consists of special mentally challenged
      residents under what is termed (The Baker-Act), 394. 910-
      917, and 954; Florida Statutes (2013).

The Florida Civil Commitment Center, located at 13619 SE Highway
70, Arcadia, Florida, is a mental health/correctional facility
which houses sex offenders.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb.
26, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38l6rI3 at no extra charge.[CC]

FLORIDA: Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition Filed in Vigliotti's Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Leave has been
filed in the case of Christopher Vigliotti, Case No. 20-7342 (U.S.
Sup. Ct., Mar. 5, 2021).

The Petitioner appears pro se.

FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Gregorio Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC GREGORIO, et al., v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-11310-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Ford's motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "The parties do not dispute that the NVLW is an
express contract that governs the same subject matter as the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim -- namely Ford's duties to
repair or replace a defect in Plaintiffs' vehicles. The dispute is
instead over what types of defects Ford is required to repair or
replace under the warranty. As is the case here, "[w]here the
parties have an enforceable contract and merely dispute its terms,
scope, or effect, one party cannot recover for promissory estoppel
and unjust enrichment." Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock
Co., 96 F.3d 174, 181 (6th Cir. 1996). And "[c]ourts have regularly
dismissed unjust enrichment claims filed against automobile
manufacturers where a valid, enforceable express warranty covers
the same subject matter as plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims."
Because the NVLW governs the parties' relationship and Ford's
duties to remedy defects, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
are dismissed."

The 12 plaintiffs in this case are owners of Ford Mustangs who
allege that Ford Motor Company sold them vehicles with inherent
defects in the manual transmissions. The Plaintiffs seek to
represent a nationwide class and nine statewide classes of owners
and lessors of 2011-to-2019-model-year Ford Mustangs equipped with
a MT82 manual transmission. The Plaintiffs' 183-page, 667-paragraph
Third Amended Complaint includes claims for fraudulent omission and
breach of express and implied warranty under the laws of nine
states, plus class-wide claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and for unjust enrichment. Ford moves to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court
grants in part and denies in part Ford's motion to dismiss.

The Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and
incorporated on June 16, 1903.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OrZRIO at no extra charge.[CC]

GEMSNY CORP: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEMSNY CORP. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GEMSNY CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-02096
(S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021).

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

GemsNY -- https://www.gemsny.com/ -- specializes in rings,
pendants, earrings, and bracelets featuring sapphires, rubies,
emeralds, alexandrites, tsavorites, and fine diamonds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Tracks Website Activity Without Consent, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL LEACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
122360744 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Mar. 2, 2021) alleges violation
of the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA).

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant use
tracking, recording, and "session replay" software to intercept the
Plaintiff's and the class members' electronic communications with
the Defendant's website, including how they interact with the
website, their mouse movements and clicks, information inputted
into the website, and pages and content viewed on the website. The
Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue
without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff and the Class
members, the suit says.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               -and-

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

               -and-

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


GILL INDUSTRIES: Walters Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lori Walters, in her Individual Capacity, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gill Industries,
Inc., Case No. 21-ci-037 was removed from the Madison County
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of
Kentucky on March 10, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00069-DCR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Gill Industries -- http://www.gill33.com/-- is an American global
supplier that works mainly in welding and assembly, headquartered
in Grand Rapids, Michigan with offices in Trenton, Georgia,
Richmond, Kentucky, and global offices in Mexico, Europe and
Asia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Peterson, Esq.
          Kellie Marie Collins, Esq.
          Taylor Margaret Shepherd, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Phone: (859) 469-5000
          Fax: (859) 469-5001
          Email: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com
                 kcollins@goldenlawoffice.com
                 taylor@goldenlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rheanne D. Falkner, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP - KY
          325 W. Main Street, Waterfront Plaza, Suite 2300
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 371-1255
          Fax: (502) 804-4630
          Email: rfalkner@grsm.com


GLENVIEW TERRACE: Biloche BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SOPHIA BILOCHE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GLENVIEW TERRACE PROPERTY, LLC, Case
No. 2021-CH-00529, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01296 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act through unlawful
collection, obtainment, use, storage and disclosure of the
Plaintiff's sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric
information.

Glenview Terrace Property, LLC is a nursing home in Glenview,
Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq.
         Matthew E. Szwajkowski, Esq.
         O'HAGAN MEYER LLC
         One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 422-6100
         Facsimile: (312) 422-6110
         E-mail: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
                 mszwajkowski@ohaganmeyer.com

GO WIRELESS: Vess Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KRISTY VESS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GO WIRELESS, INC; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV00185, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa
Cruz, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01642 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 unpaid sick pay wages, unpaid overtime wages,
inaccurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business
practices.

Go Wireless, Inc. is a seller of electronics products based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Usama Kahf, Esq.
         Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
         Rebecca S. King, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-2424
         Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
         E-mail: ukahf@fisherphillips.com
                 cahearn@fisherphillips.com
                 rking@fisherphillips.com

                 - and –

         Kevin L. Quan, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 490-9000
         Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
         E-mail: kquan@fisherphillips.com

GOLDEN MEADOW, LA: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Herigodt Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirms the trial
court's ruling dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims in the
lawsuit entitled SEAN HERIGODT v. THE TOWN OF GOLDEN MEADOW, Case
No. 2020 CA 0752 (La. App.).

Plaintiff Herigodt, devolutively appeals the trial court's judgment
sustaining a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause
of action filed by the Defendant, the Town of Golden Meadow, and
dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims against the Town, with
prejudice.

On January 8, 2018, Mr. Herigodt filed a pro se petition for
judicial review against the Town in the Seventeenth Judicial
District Court ("trial court"), Parish of Lafourche. He alleged
that he appeared in the Town of Golden Meadow Municipal Court and
pled "not guilty" to a traffic citation. He alleged that the
municipal court set a trial date for his traffic citation for
October 24, 2017; however, he filed a motion to continue to
December 19, 2017, averring that he was "embroiled in custody
proceedings in New Mexico, and that the hearings or orders issuing
from New Mexico might present conflicts with proceedings in Golden
Meadow."

Mr. Herigodt alleged that the municipal court told him "granting a
continuance would not be a problem." He alleged, however, that the
municipal court failed to notify him whether or not it had granted
or denied his motion requesting a continuance, failed to notify him
of a hearing on his motion, failed to notify him in any way whether
he was indeed expected to appear on December 19th.

Mr. Herigodt alleged that he requested a second continuance of the
December 19, 2017 trial date he had initially requested due to the
issuance of an order in his New Mexico custody proceedings that
required his presence in New Mexico on December 19, 2017. He
alleged that a person apparently speaking for Golden Meadow,
informed him via telephone on December 18, 2017, that the
magistrate had denied his continuance, and would issue a warrant if
he did not pay up or appear in court the next day.

The Plaintiff argued that the municipal court's denial of his
continuance was arbitrary, since he had a "good-faith ground," and
denied him due process of law. He claimed that he suffered
substantial anxiety as a result of having an arrest warrant issued
against him. Mr. Herigodt contended that the Town's failure to
grant him a continuance of his trial date and its issuance of a
warrant for his arrest were abuses of process, done willfully with
the ulterior purpose of eliciting the payment of fines by him,
which he claimed entitled him to damages. He further argued that he
should be awarded monetary damages against the Town for each day
the wrongfully-issued warrant was in effect, and that all charges
brought by the Town against him should be dismissed, with
prejudice.

Thereafter, the Town filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Herigodt's pro
se petition for judicial review as moot. The Town also filed a
peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action on
the basis of judicial immunity.

The trial court held a hearing on April 2, 2018, on the Town's
motion to dismiss for mootness, after which the trial court granted
the Town's motion and dismissed Mr. Herigodt's pro se petition for
judicial review as moot. The trial court signed a judgment in
accordance therewith on June 1, 2018.

Mr. Herigodt filed an amended pro se petition for damages on May 1,
2018, reiterating his claim for damages resulting from the
municipal court's denial of his motion for continuance and the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest. In filing his amended
petition, Mr. Herigodt moved to withdraw his originally-filed
petition for judicial review, stating that he could not join a
"criminal appeal to a civil tort." Mr. Herigodt filed a separate
appeal of the municipal court's denial of his motion to continue
the trial date on his traffic citation -- State v. Herigodt, Docket
No. 579763, Division E, Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish
of Lafourche, State of Louisiana.

Mr. Herigodt later filed a second amended pro se petition for
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages on July 31,
2019. He alleged that a Town police officer arrested him and issued
him three traffic citations on August 31, 2017. In his second
amended petition, Mr. Herigodt asserted a class action. However,
because the Appellate Court finds that Mr. Herigodt has no cause of
action as to his asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief, his request for a class action is moot, says Judge Jewel E.
"Duke" Welch, Jr., writing for the Panel.

Mr. Herigodt sought a preliminary injunction, ordering the Town
and/or the municipal court to: "stop all attempts at hearings, all
issuance[s] of summons and citations, all collection of fines, all
reporting of violations to the [Louisiana State Office of Motor
Vehicles ("OMV")]" until a full trial on the merits; increase its
commercial liability coverage to protect the public; restore all
fines collected through the municipal court; and pay legal
interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Mr. Herigodt also sought
declaratory judgment decreeing that the Town's process of
adjudicating fines through the municipal court is unconstitutional
and unlawful, and that all past judgments of the municipal court
are null and void ab initio.

In response, on August 19, 2019, the Town filed a second peremptory
exception raising the objection of no cause of action on the basis
that Mr. Herigodt's lawsuit was a collateral attack on his
municipal court convictions and imposed fine that is barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)
and its progeny. The Town argued that as acknowledged by Mr.
Herigodt in his second amended petition, the municipal court
convicted him of his traffic citations and imposed a fine. The Town
argued that Mr. Herigodt appealed his municipal court convictions
and fine, with a hearing set for August 23, 2019. Because the
appeal of his municipal court convictions and imposed fine was
pending, the Town argued that Mr. Herigodt was barred from
collaterally attacking his convictions pursuant to Heck. Mr.
Herigodt opposed the Town's exception.

Prior to a hearing on the exception, the Town filed a supplemental
memorandum, attaching a judgment rendered in Mr. Herigodt's appeal
of his municipal court convictions and imposed fine. It contended
that Heck barred the claims asserted by Mr. Herigodt in his second
amended petition because those were the same claims adjudicated and
rejected in the appeal of his convictions and imposed fine.

Following a hearing on February 28, 2020, on the Town's objection
of no cause of action on the basis of judicial immunity and Heck,
the trial court granted the objection and dismissed Mr. Herigodt's
claims against the Town, with prejudice. The trial court held that
Mr. Herigodt was barred from re-litigating the claims asserted in
the appeal of his municipal court convictions and fine; that his
claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity because all
of the actions he complained of were related to decisions made by
the magistrate and/or employees of the municipal court; and that
even accepted as true, the facts pled by Mr. Herigodt failed to
state a cause of action that the municipal court is illegal or
lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his traffic citations. The trial
court signed a judgment in accordance with its oral ruling on March
20, 2020.

Mr. Herigodt now appeals.

In his first, second, and third related assignments of error, Mr.
Herigodt contends that the trial court erred by relying on the
judgment that affirmed his municipal court convictions and imposed
fine. In his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Herigodt argues that
the trial court erred in sustaining the Town's objection of no
cause of action, finding that his claims are barred by Heck.

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who has been
convicted of a crime cannot bring a Section 1983 claim challenging
the constitutionality of his conviction unless that conviction has
been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question
by federal habeas corpus (Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. at
2372).

Mr. Herigodt's claims regarding the fairness of the trial of his
traffic citations alleged errors in the proceedings in the appeal
of his municipal court convictions necessarily require him to prove
the unlawfulness of his municipal court convictions and imposed
fine.

Since Mr. Herigodt's claims challenge the validity of his
convictions and imposed fine, his allegations are the type of claim
that are barred by Heck and its progeny, Judge Welch holds.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds no merit to Mr. Herigodt's
first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error.

In his first, third, fifth, and sixth related assignments of error,
Mr. Herigodt further contends that the trial court erred is
sustaining the Town's no cause of action objection on the basis of
judicial immunity.

The doctrine of judicial immunity developed at common law as a
shield intended to protect judges from civil suits for damages for
actions taken in their judicial capacity.

After a careful review of amended petition and second amended
petition, the Appellate Court concludes that all of the specific
allegations made by Mr. Herigodt involve action and inaction by a
magistrate or municipal court employee in their official capacity.
Presiding over proceedings are actions uniquely within the province
of a magistrate's duty to decide cases within his jurisdiction that
were brought before him. Likewise, Mr. Herigodt's allegation that
the magistrate arbitrarily denied his motion for continuance is
within the ambit of the magistrate's immunity since an omission of
judicial action is likewise conduct within a judge's official
capacity. Absent any factual allegations that the magistrate or a
municipal court employee acted outside their judicial capacities or
jurisdiction, Appellate Court concludes that the trial court
correctly sustained the peremptory exception raising the objection
of no cause of action on the basis of judicial immunity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds no merit to Mr. Herigodt's first,
third, fifth, and sixth assignments of error.

In Mr. Herigodt's seventh and eighth assignments of error, he
contends that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to
allege facts that would support any valid cause of action,
including a claim for declaratory relief.

The facts as alleged in Mr. Herigodt's amended and second amended
petitions relate specifically to his arrest for the traffic
violations; the issuance of the traffic citations by the Town
police; communications with the municipal court regarding his court
dates and requests for and denials of continuances; and his
convictions on his traffic citations and resulting fine. In his
second amended petition, Mr. Herigodt alleged, as to his request
for injunctive and declaratory relief, that the Town is
horrifically underinsured. He also requested, among other things,
an immediate preliminary injunction to issue, ordering the Town and
its court to stop all attempts at hearings, all issuances of
summons and citations, all collection of fines, all reporting of
violations to the OMV, until--at trial on the merits--the Town
sufficiently shows it has corrected the flaws described and is
unlikely to repeat its former conduct.

Judge Welch finds that Mr. Herigodt's claims that he is entitled to
injunctive and declaratory relief related to his arguments that the
Town, major, clerk, magistrate, and the municipal court are engaged
in a scheme to increase the Town's revenues are conclusory
allegations that cannot be considered in determining whether there
are sufficient facts to support a cause of action.

Furthermore, Mr. Herigodt's allegations that challenge the Town's
municipal court and its process of adjudicating fines are an
attempt to declare the Town and its government unconstitutional,
Judge Welch holds. However, the Constitution of the State of
Louisiana of 1974, as well as the Louisiana Revised Statutes,
provide for the incorporation of municipalities, cities, towns, or
villages. Judge Welch opines that Mr. Herigodt has not alleged
facts sufficient to show the unconstitutionality of the Town or its
municipal court. The Judge adds that Mr. Herigodt's allegations are
another attempt to collaterally attack his municipal convictions
and imposed fines.

Based on these, the Appellate Court finds that Mr. Herigodt has
cited no facts to show his entitlement to the relief requested.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds no merit to Mr. Herigodt's
seventh and eighth assignments of error.

In his final assignment of error, Mr. Herigodt contends that the
trial court erred in dismissing his suit, with prejudice. A trial
judge is vested with great discretion in dismissing a lawsuit with
or without prejudice. Quality Envtl. Processes, Inc. v. IP
Petroleum Co., Inc., 2016-0230 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 219
So.3d 349, 379, writ denied, 2017-00915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So.3d
833.

The Appellate Court finds no abuse of the trial court's discretion
in dismissing Mr. Herigodt's claims against the Town with
prejudice. Based on its review of the record, the pleadings, and
the trial court's reasons for disallowing Mr. Herigodt from
amending his petitions, the Appellate Court finds no abuse of the
trial court's discretion.

Finally, Mr. Herigodt contends that the trial court erred by taxing
him with costs of the trial court proceedings. In the March 20,
2020 judgment, the trial court assessed all costs of the
proceedings against Mr. Herigodt. The record demonstrates that on
February 26, 2018, the trial court signed an order granting Mr.
Herigodt's request to proceed in forma pauperis, to "prosecute or
defend this litigation in accordance with Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure, Article 5181, without paying the costs in advance or as
they accrue or furnishing security therefor."

The record on appeal does not contain an "affidavit of the account"
that has been prepared by the Clerk of Court Office's and recorded
in the mortgage records showing "all costs incurred" by Mr.
Herigodt, who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis by the
trial court. Once sworn to and recorded in the mortgage records,
that affidavit will have the effect of a judgment for the payment
due.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court finds no error in the
trial court's discretion to cast the costs of the trial court
proceedings to Mr. Herigodt. Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds
no merit to Mr. Herigodt's ninth assignment of error.

The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's March 20, 2020
judgment. Although the Plaintiff/Appellant prosecuted this appeal
in forma pauperis, costs may nevertheless be taxed against him.
Accordingly, all costs of this appeal, in the amount of $1,459.50,
are assessed against him.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r57pmm6 from Leagle.com.

Bradley C. Myers -- brad.myers@keanmiller.com -- in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, DEFENDANT--The Town of Golden
Meadow.


GRAND CANYON: Opposition to Little Class Cert. Bid Due April 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little v. Grand
Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-00795-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order that the Defendant's
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will be
due for filing on before April 6, 2021, and Plaintiff's reply will
be due for filing on or before May 4, 2021.

GCU is a for-profit, private, Christian university in Phoenix,
Arizona.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bvZ5mQ at no extra charge.[CC]

GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Castro Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCOS CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01172807-CU-OECXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00448 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.

Graphic Packaging International, LLC is a provider of paper-based
packaging solutions, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Graphic Packaging International, Inc. is a paperboard mills company
based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq.
         Phillip G. Simpler, 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
                 psimpler@fisherphillips.com

GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Improperly Pays Workers, Parada Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROBI PARADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09163 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide
employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid employee
from on or about February 1, 2020 until on or about July 3, 2020.

Greystar Management Services is a real estate services company
doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
                       
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

GRUNDFOS PUMPS: Smith Labor Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRUNDFOS PUMPS MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION; GRUNDFOS AMERICAS CORPORATION; GRUNDFOS CBS, INC.;
GRUNDFOS PUMPS CORPORATION; GRUNDFOS US HOLDING CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00674, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00242 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll
records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to timely
pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unlawful business practices.

Grundfos Pumps Manufacturing Corporation is a pump manufacturer
based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Grundfos Americas Corporation is a pump manufacturer located in
Downers Grove, Illinois.

Grundfos CBS, Inc. is a pump manufacturer in Brookshire, Texas.

Grundfos Pumps Corporation is a manufacturer of pumps for heating
and air-conditioning based in Kansas.

Grundfos US Holding Corporation is a manufacturer of pumps for
heating and air-conditioning based in Kansas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Michael J. Nader, Esq.
         Paul M. Smith, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 840-3150
         Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
         E-mail: michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
                 paul.smith@ogletree.com

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Hanson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-01269 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising and marketing of its baby food products
under the brand name Earth's Best Organics. The Defendant
represented the products as organic and non-genetically modified
organism (GMO). However, contrary to representations, the products
contain dangerous levels of heavy metals. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members paid premium price for the baby food products.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is an American food company
headquartered in Lake Success, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
                       
         Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
         Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
         Allison W. Parr, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         1828 L Street, NW Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 973-0900
         Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
         E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
                 hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 aparr@tzlegal.com

                 - and –

         Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 254-6808
         Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
         E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

HAIN CELESTIAL: Henry Files Suit in E.D. New York for Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Najah A. Henry, Chanel J. Jackson,
Alexis Dias, Holly Buffinton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hain Celestial Group doing business
as: Earth's Best Organics, Case No. 2:21-cv-01293-GRB-ST (E.D.N.Y.,
March 10, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. -- http://www.hain.com/-- is an
American food company whose main focus is foods and personal care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          3550 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneappolis, MN 55402
          Fax: (612) 338-4692

               - and -

          Davina Okonkwo, Esq.
          Lori Kier, Esq.
          Matthew Schelkopf, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          233 S 6th St, Suite 304
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 840-7112
          Fax: (215) 357-0269
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

               - and -

          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 346-2222
          Email: kae@wexlerwallace.com
                 kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          3 Terry Drive, Ste. 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Fax: (267) 685-0676
          Email: medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          Kevin S. Landau, Esq.
          TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: (646) 873-7650
          Fax: (212) 931-0703
          Email: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
                 klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3895

               - and -

          Raina C Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUED PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Ste. 2600
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Simon Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Phone: (215) 575-3986
          Email: sparis@smbb.com


HOLMES COUNTY SHERIFF: Corrections Officers Win Conditional Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MONTGOMERY, et
al. for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TIMOTHY W.
ZIMMERLY, HOLMES COUNTY SHERIFF,  Case No. 5:20-cv-02267-KBB (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kathleen B. Burke entered an order approving
parties' joint stipulation of conditional class certification and
notice to class pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216 (b) as follows:

   1. approving and incorporating the parties' stipulation;

   2. conditionally certifying class under 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b):

      "All current and former Corrections Officers employed by
      the Defendant on or after October 7, 2017, who were paid
      on an hourly basis, worked at least 39 hours in any
      workweek, and were required to attend pre-shift meetings;"

   3. approving the form and substance of the Proposed Notice of
      Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent Form to be
      provided to the collective class;

   4. appointing Attorneys Greg R. Mansell and Carrie J. Dyer of
      Mansell Law LLC as class counsel for the conditionally
      certified collective class;

   5. directing the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by providing a list of the names, addresses, e-
      mail addresses, and dates of employment of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who fit the class definition no later
      than 21 days from the date of this entry;

   6. authorizing the distribution of Notice by the Plaintiffs'
      class counsel via first-class U.S. Mail and electronic
      mail within 14 days of receiving class information from
      Defendant;

   7. authorizing the distribution of a Reminder Notice to
      Stipulation by Plaintiffs' counsel to the putative
      collective class members who have not yet responded by
      electronic mail 20 days after the date the initial email
      was sent;

   8. authorizing a 45-day Notice Period for opting into this
      lawsuit, which shall commence on the date that the Notice
      is postmarked; and

   9. directing the parties to file a joint status report within
      three days of the initial mailing of Notice to potential
      opt-in plaintiffs informing the Court of the date Notice
      was mailed;

Holmes County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. As of
the 2010 census, the population was 42,366. Its county seat is
Millersburg. The county was formed in 1824 from portions of
Coshocton, Tuscarawas and Wayne counties and organized the
following year.

A copy of the Court's order approving parties' joint stipulation of
conditional class dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30yOMbF at no extra charge.[CC]


HOME DEPOT: Mendiola ERISA Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS MENDIOLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04027-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class No. 1 or, alternatively,
      certify Class No. 2; if either Class No. 1 or
      Class No. 2 are not properly defined the Court should use
      its discretion to modify the proposed class definition;

   2. appointing himself as Class Representative;

   3. appointing his counsel, Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J.
      Hill of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Marc R. Edelman
      of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as class counsel; and

   4. allowing them to notify the Class members.

      Class No. 1: Nationwide Four-Year Class:

     "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendants'
     Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by  
     Defendants, during the applicable four-year statute of  
     limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as  
     determined by Defendants, and (2) did not elect  
     continuation coverage."

     Class No. 2: Alternative Nationwide One-Year Class:

     "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendants'  
     Health Plan who: (1) were sent a COBRA notice by  
     Defendants, from July 9, 2020 through the present, as  
     determined by the Defendants, and (2) did not elect  
     continuation coverage.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiff and the putative class members with a COBRA notice that
complies with the law. The case is ripe for class treatment. Home
Depot's problems with Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) compliance are well-documented lately, as demonstrated
by a recent Order from Pizarro v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-01566-WMR, 2020-WL-6939810 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2020). In
Pizzaro the Court certified a nationwide class of 300,000
participants in the Home Depot 401(k) Plan with ERISA claims. The
same result should follow here.

The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot, is the largest
home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools,
construction products, and services. The company is headquartered
in incorporated Cobb County, Georgia, with an Atlanta mailing
address.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3clwKiC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Adeash Lakraj, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          PO Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-1909
          Facsimile: (470) 639-6899
          E-mail: ALakraj@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Bleiler et al., Get Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Innocoll Holdings Public Limited
Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00341-GEKP (E.D.
Pa.), the Lead Plaintiffs Russel Bleiler and Carl Bayney move the
Court for entry of an Order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the
      following Class:

      "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the publicly traded American Depositary Shares of
      Innocoll AG or the publicly traded common stock of
      Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company  between
      July 25, 2014, and December 29, 2016, both dates inclusive,
      ("Class Period"), including in public offerings closing
      on or around July 25, 2014, April 23, 2015, and June 17,
2016;"

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers
      and directors of Innocoll, members of the Individual
      Defendants' immediate families and their legal
      representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any
      entity in which Officer or Director Defendants have or had
      a controlling interest;

   2. appointing Carl Bayney and Russel Bleiler as Class
      Representatives;

   3. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Class Counsel; and

   4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
      just and proper.

Innocoll Holdings operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
The Company focuses on developing collagen-based products and
medicine. Innocoll Holdings offers diabetic foot infection,
postoperative pain management, and the prevention of surgical
adhesions solutions. Innocoll Holdings serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PKz0rO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
                  jhorne@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Adam Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30 th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (877) 590-0482
          E-mail: Brian@schallfirm.com

INOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint in the class action suit entitled, In re
Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, is still
pending

On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities.

On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court.

On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.

On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, rather than to deceptive
sales practices;  (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of
portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the
Medicare market, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On January 2, 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint with leave to amend.

On January 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
generally alleging substantially similar claims as those in the
previous complaint. On January 23, 2020, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On September 2, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and instructed defendants to file another
motion to dismiss if the parties are unable to resolve the issues
relating to the second amended complaint.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 28, 2020; that
motion is currently pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.

Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.

INSPIRE SUMMITS: Barlow FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HEATHER BARLOW; VALUE EXTRACTION SERVICES LLC;
PHILLIP LOFASO; JAKE HENDRICKSON; MAKEEDA PERKINS; MAURA MURPHY;
MARINA PUSHKINA; JEN DOBIES; ROES 1-2, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTOPHER SKROUPA; INSPIRE
SUMMITS LLC d/b/a SKYTOP STRATEGIES; DAVID KATZ; JOHN STEPHEN
WILSON; PAULA LUFF; and ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS DOES 1-5, Case No.
651739/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02094 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Inspire Summits LLC, doing business as Skytop Strategies, is a
company that convenes senior company management, boards of
directors, and institutional shareholders on the creation of
long-term value, with its principal place of business in New York,
New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Adam E. Engel, Esq.
         THE ENGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         280 Madison Avenue – Suite 705
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 665-8095

INSURANCE SERVICES: Court Tosses Lehman Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERELYNN LEHMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INSURANCE SERVICES FOR YOU INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. :
1:20-cv-00384-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered
an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
for leave to take discovery prior to entry of final judgment.

Pursuant to Federal Rules 23 and 55, the Plaintiff Sherelynn
Lehman, requests that the Court: (1) certify the two Classes
identified in the complaint; and grant Plaintiff leave to take
discovery to identify members of the Classes and determine the
measure of damages they are entitled to prior to the entry of final
judgment.

On February 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant. In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts two
claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants provides health insurance for qualified individuals,
families and groups.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eoubyP at no extra charge.[CC]


JAMESTOWN TN: Time to File Class Status Bid Extended to April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA SLAUGHTER; and
KAREN ANETTE BILBREY COOPER, v. JAMESTOWN TN MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
RENNOVA HEALTH, INC.; and RENNOVA HEALTH SERVICE TN, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs Joshua Slaughter and
Karen Cooper move the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for an extension of time to file a Motion for Class Certification
and to file a Motion in Support of Damages.

The Motion for Class Certification is currently due on March 1,
2021. The Motion in Support of Damages is currently due on April 1,
2021. The parties have scheduled mediation in this matter on April
1, 2021 and Plaintiffs request that the Court grant an additional
60 days to file each Motion. The Motion for Class Certification
will be due on April 30, 2021 and the Motion in Support of Damages
will be due on June 1, 2021. Plaintiffs have conferred with the
Defendants' counsel, and counsel does not oppose this extension.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 1, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30v7Bwc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          William J. (Paz) Haynes, III, Esq.
          Samuel L. Jackson, Esq.
          BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC
          511 Union Street, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37219
          E-mail: whaynes@bonelaw.com
                  sjackson@bonelaw.com

JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company
and/or its subsidiaries continue to defend several class action
lawsuits related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
subsidiary of the company (JHG), Janus Index & Calculation Services
LLC, which, effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson
Indices LLC, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker:
XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v.
Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). Credit Suisse AG, the issuer
of the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On May 4, 2018, an additional class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse in the
SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The Qiu
allegations generally copy the allegations in the Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

The Janus Henderson Group plc and Credit Suisse defendants moved to
dismiss the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25,
2019, the court dismissed all claims against all defendants.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to
further amend their complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in
its entirety.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Janus said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these
exchange-traded note lawsuits are without merit and are vigorously
defending these actions. As of December 31, 2020, we cannot
reasonably estimate possible losses from the remaining claims in
the exchange-traded note lawsuits."

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JAWZ PROTECTION: Underpays Security Guards, Charles Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAWZ PROTECTION SERVICE L.L.C.; JAWZ
PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC; JEREMY A. WILLIAMS; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09101 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 8, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard from on
or around 2019 to on or around December 2, 2020.

JAWZ Protection Service L.L.C. is a security services company based
in California.

JAWZ Protection Services, LLC is a security services company
located in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Lead Role in Guttentag Due on April 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL GUTTENTAG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JIANPU TECHNOLOGY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1419 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
order ruling that members of the purported class will have until
April 19, 2021, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.

On Feb. 17, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Jianpu Technology, Inc. ("Jianpu") shares
between May 29, 2018, and February 16, 2021, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby, except for the Defendants, the officers and
directors of Jianpu, at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

As explained in the Court's February 18, 2021 Order, Section
78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A), requires that within
20 days of the filing of the complaint, the Plaintiff will "cause
to be published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented
publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the
purported plaintiff class of the pendency of the action, the claims
asserted therein, and the purported class period."

The PSLRA also provides that "not later than 60 days after the date
on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported
class." In addition, the Act requires that not later than 90 days
after the date on which notice is published, the Court shall
consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to
the notice, and shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or
members of the purported plaintiff class that the Court determines
to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of
class members.

In the event that more than one action on behalf of a class
asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed,
and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial
purposes or for trial, the Court will not appoint a lead plaintiff
until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.

The Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the required notice
was published on Feb. 17, 2021. Members of the purported class,
therefore, have until April 19, 2021, to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiffs. It is ordered that opposition to any motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by May 3,
2021. Finally, it is ordered that a conference will be held on May
13, 2021, at 4:00 p.m., to consider any motions for appointment of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation.

If an amended complaint or a related case is filed prior to
appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Plaintiff's counsel will,
within one week, submit a letter to the Court identifying any
differences between the allegations in the new complaint(s) and the
allegations in the original complaint (including any differences in
the claims asserted and the relevant class periods) and showing
cause why the Court should not order republication of notice under
the PSLRA and set a new deadline for the filing of motions for
appointment.

It is further ordered that the named plaintiffs will promptly serve
a copy of the Order on each of the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bt8hd4ph from Leagle.com.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Suit Over SOPRA Study Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the securities class action related to the disclosed
results from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b
STORM study remains pending.

The company was named as a defendant in a securities class action
litigation filed on July 23, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of the company's public offerings of common stock
conducted in April 2017 and May 2018. This complaint was
voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, in the same court and against the same defendants with the
exception of the underwriters.

In April 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, Myo Thant, who
filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2020. The amended complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws based on the
company's disclosures related to the results from the Phase 2 SOPRA
study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest; reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and expert fees; and such
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

The company had reviewed the allegations and believe they are
without merit.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on July 31, 2020 and
concluded related briefing in September 2020. Before the court
ruled on this motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
November 2, 2020.

On December 14, 2020, the company was named as a defendant in a
shareholder derivative suit based on allegations substantially
similar to those in the class action litigation. The suit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by
Plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors. On January 12, 2021, the shareholder derivative suit was
stayed pending the outcome of further proceedings in the securities
class action.

Karyopharm said, "We intend to defend vigorously against this
litigation."

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


KELLER WILLIAMS: Court Dismisses w/o Prejudice Becker Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY BECKER, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., and KRISTAN COLE, Case No. 9:19-cv-81451-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order
dismissing without prejudice all claims of the Plaintiff and of the
putative class.

Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.
The Clerk is directed to close this case and any pending motions
are denied as moot, Judge Singhal says.

On March 1, 2021, the Court has reviewed the stipulation for
dismissal filed by the parties.

Keller Williams is an American technology and international real
estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38uVeVl at no extra charge.[CC]

KNOXVILLE PALLET: Lumpkin Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN LUMPKIN,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. KNOXVILLE PALLET RECYCLERS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00193-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. authorizing his claims to proceed as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for overtime
      violations;

   2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide his counsel
      a computer-readable file containing the names (last names
      first), last known physical addresses, last known email
      addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment
      and last known telephone numbers of all putative class
      members;

   3. providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with all
      of the Defendant's currently employed putative class
      members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, be
      prominently posted at the facilities where putative class
      members work, and be mailed and emailed to the putative
      class members so that they can assert their claims on a
      timely basis as part of this litigation;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
      as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and

   5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join
      Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

Knoxville Pallet is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Knoxville,
Tennessee.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vb3NOO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KOOPLES USA: Faces Chu Suit Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE KOOPLES USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01530-SK (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the American with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
required screen reading software to read Website content using his
computer.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's Website,
https://www.thekooples.com/us_en/, has multiple access barriers
that despite the Plaintiff's past and recent attempts to do
business with the Defendant on its Website, he was denied full and
equal access. These access barriers on the Defendant's Website have
deterred the Plaintiff from visiting the Defendant's physical
locations and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals because he
was not able to find the locations and hours of operation of the
Defendant's stores on its Website, the suit says.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated visually impaired consumers
with equal access to the Website.

The Kooples USA, Inc. designs and manufactures apparels, and offers
its Website to the public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


KPC HEALTHCARE: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for July 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Gamino v. KPC
Healthcare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK
(C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. Entered an
initial case management order as follows:

   -- The hearing for the forthcoming motion for class
      certification is set for July 30, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

   -- The reply will be due July 9, 2021, and the Court directed
      the parties to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable
      briefing schedule.

   -- Further deadlines will be set upon resolution of the class
      certification motion. Any discovery disputes are referred
      to the Magistrate Judge.

The complaint was filed on June 1, 2020, and the answer was filed
on February 11, 2021.

The deadlines below will not be continued absent a timely showing
of good cause. Good cause requires a specific, detailed, and
non-conclusory showing of diligence, describing: (1) all relevant
work previously done (including when each item was completed), (11)
all relevant work that remains to be done, (111) why the remaining
work could not previously have been done (including efforts made to
complete each remaining item), and (iv) why the amount of time
requested is needed to complete the remaining work.

A copy of the civil minutes -- order dated March 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vb7Pqx at no
extra charge.[CC]

LABOR SOURCE: Murphy, Rogers File Conditional Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCQUISE MURPHY and
RATANYA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC d/b/a CATSTAFF d/b/a ONE SOURCE
STAFFING AND LABOR, and BLUSKY RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, Case
No. 0:19-cv-01929-ECW (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a nationwide
      collective action and a Minnesota state-wide collective
      action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. setting a ninety-day notice period;

   3. approving the form of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to mail, email, and
      text message the notice at the beginning of the ninety-day
      notice period;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to mail, email, and
      text message a reminder notice at the sixtieth day of the
      notice period;

   6. directing the Defendant BluSky Restoration Contractors,
      LLC to post the Court-approved notice in a conspicuous
      location at all active jobsites in the United States;

   7. directing BluSky to produce a list of all persons employed
      by BluSky as a manual laborer in the United States, at any
      time from July 23, 2016 to the present, including each
      person's name, last known mailing address, last known
      email address (whether work or personal), last known
      telephone number(s), dates and location(s) of employment,
      and identification of the staffing agency used by BluSky
      to hire the worker;

   8. directing the Defendant Labor Source, LLC to produce a
      list of all persons employed by Labor Source as a manual
      laborer on any BluSky project in Minnesota from July 23,
      2016 through the present, including each person's name,
      last known mailing address, last known email address
      (whether work or personal), last known phone number(s),
      and the dates and locations of employment in Minnesota;
      and

   9. granting equitable tolling for the putative Collective
      members from May 21, 2020 until the close of the opt-in
      period.

Labor Source is a staffing company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rEAnGu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Class, and Collective Members,
are:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

MANNA DEVELOPMENT: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANNA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC; RISEN BREAD,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08854
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act by their failures to: (1)
provide all rest and meal periods; (2) indemnify for necessary
work-related expenditures; (3) pay all wages earned for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay; (4) provide accurate written
wage statements; and (5) timely pay wages during and upon
termination of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly catering
coordinator on or about July 27, 2019. She was demoted to hourly
line production associate on September 19, 2019 until her
termination on October 6, 2020.

Manna Development Group, LLC is an owner and operator of
restaurants, with its principal place of business in California.

Risen Bread, LLC is an owner and operator of restaurants, with its
principal place of business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         David G. Spivak, Esq.
         Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
         Maya Cheaitani, Esq.
         THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
         16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (213) 725-9094
         Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
         E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                 maralle@spivaklaw.com
                 maya@spivaklaw.com

MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Parker Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA ANN PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01118-HB (E.D. Pa.,
March 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation,
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control,
labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax
because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused
viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to
consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their
healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious
bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well
as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.

Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Nicole Lovett, Esq.,
         Michael Goetz, Esq.
         T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 222-4737
         E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com
                 MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
                 MMorgan@ForThePeople.com

MERCURY GENERAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Cert. of National Damages Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC a
Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware
entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, v. MERCURY GENERAL a
California company, its subsidiaries and affiliates, Case No.
2:17-cv-02557-AB-AFM (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court o April 23, 2021 to enter an order granting their motion
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a-c) and Local Rule 23:

   -- certifying a national damages class against the Defendant
      Mercury General Corporation under Rule 23(b)(3) and, in
      the alternative;

  --  certifying a national issues class under Rule 23(c)(4).

Mercury issues automobile policies throughout the country and is
the fourth largest private passenger automobile insurer in
California, with more than $5.9 billion in 20 total assets.

A copy of the  Plaintiffs' amended notice of motion to certify
class dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

  Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon, Blvd. Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: cwhorton@riveromestre.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN, & COFFIN
          2505 Energy Center
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
                  tturner@pbclawfirm.com
                  cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          Adam M. Foster, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  afoster@baumhedlundlaw.com

MGM RESORTS: Conditional Class Certification Filing Due June 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALDONADO v. MGM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05599 (D.N.J.), the
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that:

   -- On or before March 22, 2021, the Defendant shall produce
      responses to all of the Plaintiff's outstanding discovery
      requests;

   -- If the Defendant fails to produce such responses, the
      Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Motion to Compel; and

   -- On or before June 25, 2021, the Plaintiff shall file the
      Motion for Conditional Class Certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MGM Resorts is an American global hospitality and entertainment
company operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts,
Detroit, Mississippi, Maryland, and New Jersey, including Bellagio,
Mandalay Bay, MGM Grand, and Park MGM.[CC]

MICHIGAN EDUCATION: Eligible Student Class in D.R. Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.R., as a minor through
parent and next friend Dawn Richardson, et al., v. Michigan
Department of Education, Genesee Intermediate School District and
Flint Community Schools, Case No. 2:16-cv-13694-AJT-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to certify a
      class, appoint class counsel, preliminarily approve class
      settlement, direct class notice, and schedule a fairness
      hearing;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
      a stipulated class consisting of "all Eligible Students;"

   3. certifying the class for injunctive and declaratory relief
      and for settlement purposes only;

   4. appointing Attorneys Gregory G. Little, Lindsay M. Heck,
      and Daniel S. Korobkin as class counsel;

   5. preliminarily approving Class settlement as proposed by
      the parties;

   6. approving Class notice as proposed by the parties, and
      directing each Defendant to post the class notice on its
      respective website no later than 7 days after the entry of
      this Order;

   7. directing the Clerk to promptly e-file any written
      objections to the proposed settlement and to make
      appropriate redactions required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a);
      and

   8. setting the proposed class settlement for a virtual
      Hearing on April 12, 2021 at 2:30 p.m.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have incorporated by reference
their previously filed brief in support of class certification, and
they have submitted a copy of their settlement agreement with the
Defendants, and a proposed class notice. The Plaintiffs have
further indicated that counsel for all parties have discussed the
contents of the motion and Defendants do not oppose it. Having
reviewed the Plaintiffs' submissions and based on its review of the
factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, UAW v.
GMC, 497 F.3d 615, 622 (6th Cir. 2007), and Pelzer v. Vassalle, 655
F. App'x 352, 359 (6th Cir. 2016), the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs" motion is due to be granted.

This is a putative class action lawsuit for injunctive and
declaratory relief. The putative plaintiff class consists of:

   "all present and future children, ages 3 through 26, who
   resided in the City of Flint on or after April 2014 up until
   December 31, 2018, or who were on the City of Flint Water
   Supply on or after April 2014 up until December 31, 2018, or
   who were impacted by the Flint Water Crisis, and who require
   special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA
   and its federal implementing regulations, and/or 504 services
   pursuant to Section 504 2, as well as analogous provisions
   of Michigan state law ("Eligible Students")."

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to discharge
their "Child Find" obligations to identify all children with
disabilities and provide comprehensive evaluations in all areas of
suspected disability; that Defendants have failed to provide
required special education and related services to qualifying
students with disabilities; that Defendants have further failed to
apply necessary procedural safeguards in the administration of
disciplinary practices; and that they have unfairly discriminated
against students with disabilities who qualify or who should be
found to qualify for special education and related services. The
Defendants deny these allegations.

The Plaintiffs include A.K., as a minor through parent and next
friend, Angy Keelin, C.D.M., as a minor through parent and next
friend Crystal McCadden, C.M., as a minor through parent and next
friend Crystal McCadden, J.T., as a minor through parent and next
friend Nakiya Wakes, N.S., as a minor through parent and next
friend Nakiya Wakes, J.W., as a minor through parent and next
friend Kathy Wright, C.D., as a minor through parent and next
friend Twanda Davis, D.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, M.K. as a minor through parent and next friend
Rachel Kirksey, O.N., as a minor through parent and next friend
Manita Davis, D.T. as a minor through parent and next friend Manita
Davis, D.D. as a minor through parent and next friend Chandrika
Walker, C.W. as minor through parent and next friend Chandrinka
Walker, J.B. as a minor through parent and next friend Jeree Brown,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons.

The Michigan Department of Education is a state agency of Michigan,
in the United States. The MDE oversees public school districts in
the state. The department is governed by the State Board of
Education. Genesee Intermediate School District is an Intermediate
School District in Michigan serving the school districts that
primarily lie within Genesee County. Flint Community Schools is a
school district headquartered in Flint, Michigan.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vcbSml at no extra charge.[CC]

MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, In re
Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation, is pending.

In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is a
putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus filed on
March 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo against Micro Focus International plc and certain current and
former directors and officers, among others.

Six additional purported holders of Micro Focus ADS filed putative
class actions in the same court, and the court consolidated all
cases.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the
forum-selection clause in the Deposit Agreement, which is pending
before the court.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the appeal
in the putative securities class action suit entitled, In re Micro
Focus International plc Securities Litigation, is pending.

In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is
another putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus
ADS filed on May 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Micro Focus and certain
current and former directors and officers, among others.  

On July 26, 2018, the court transferred the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and of the
Exchange Act. On September 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

On November 4, 2019, Micro Focus and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On September 30, 2020, the court granted the motions dismiss and
dismissed the second amended complaint in its entirety.

The lead plaintiff has appealed from the dismissal, and the appeal
remains pending.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Ross and Rogus Putative Class Suit vs. HPE Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that HPE
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross and
Rogus vs HPE.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.  

The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."  

The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MICRO FOCUS: Settlement in Araiza Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the court in
Araiza vs. HP Inc. and HPE, issued its Final Approval Order on the
settlement and set the Compliance hearing for September 23, 2021.

On December 29, 2015, former PPS (HP Inc.) employee Daniel Araiza
filed a California class action against HP Inc. and HPE in Santa
Clara County Superior Court.

Plaintiff alleges failure to (a) compensate Field Technical Support
Representatives with minimum and overtime wages for all hours
worked, (b) failure to pay exempt and non-exempt employees all
accrued vacation and/or floating holidays upon separation of
employment, (c) to provide meal breaks, and (d) derivate claims for
inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair business
practices, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties.

Plaintiff sought to certify three groups of California employees
from December 29, 2011 to the present.  

The parties participated in settlement discussions and settled the
lawsuit on March 19, 2019, subject to court approval.  

On July 30, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
and set the final approval hearing. The deadline to object to the
settlement was October 19, 2020; no objections were filed.   

On January 27, 2021, the court issued its Final Approval Order and
set the Compliance hearing for September 23, 2021.

A provision is in place to cover Micro Focus' share of the
settlement.

Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.


MIKE BLOOMBERG INC: Abed Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMZI ABED, MICHAEL
FLOWERS, LAUREN LEVITT, and CHRISTOPHER MYRICK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public, v.
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 thru
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02231-CBM-JC (C.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiffs Michael Flowers and Christopher Myrick will move the
Court on March 30, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following
classes:

   -- Hustle Class

      "All persons within the United States who (a) received a
      text message on his or her cellular telephone; (b) sent by
      Defendant (c) using the software Hustle; (d) without
      giving prior express consent to receive such texts; (e) at
      any time between March 6, 2016 and the date the Court
      grants class certification;" and

   -- New Partners Class

      "All persons within the United States who (a) received a
      text message on his or her cellular telephone; (b) sent by
      New Partners (c) on behalf of Defendant (d) using the
      software Blu Txt; (e) without giving prior express consent
      to receive such texts; (f) at any time between March 6,
      2016 and the date the Court."

The 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg, a businessman
and former mayor of New York City, began when he filed a statement
of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission for the office of
President of the United States as a member of the Democratic Party
on November 21, 2019. His principal campaign committee was called
"Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc." The campaign officially launched on
November 24, 2019, in Virginia, later than most other candidates
for the Democratic nomination.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tcIiLx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Michelle J. Lopez, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrex@parris.com
                  alex@parris.com
                  jbickford@parris.com
                  mlopez@parris.com

               - and -

          Hirad D. Dadgostar, Esq.
          Azadeh Dadgostar Gilbert, Esq.
          DADGOSTAR LAW LLP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-1022
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1088
          E-mail: hirad@dadgostarlaw.com
                  azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
          Witt W. Chang, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com
                  wwchang@venable.com

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Constantinou Sues Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGIOS CONSTANTINOU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., W.
ALEXANDER HOLMES, and LAWRENCE ANGELILLI, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02161 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 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 allegedly made false and
misleading statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) regarding MoneyGram's business, operations, and financial
results in order to artificially inflate the prices of MoneyGram
securities between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) XRP, the
cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was utilizing as part of its Ripple
partnership, was viewed as an unregistered and therefore unlawful
security by the SEC; (ii) in the event that the SEC decided to
enforce the securities laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be
likely to lose the lucrative stream of market development fees that
was critical to its financial results throughout the Class Period;
and (iii) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, MoneyGram securities fell 33.2%, from a
closing price on February 19, 2021 of $10.87 per share, to a
closing price on February 23, 2021 of $7.26 per share. As a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the suit says.

MoneyGram International, Inc. is a money transfer company, with its
principal executive offices at 2828 N. Harwood St., 15th Floor,
Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                 - and –

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

MOON ACTIVE: Fryar Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Coin Master
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS FRYAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOON ACTIVE LTD., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-01977 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
marketing and design of Coin Master, a social casino game, to
represent it as a lawful game to users, including the Plaintiff.
Unlike a regular casino, players of social casino games like Coin
Master do not win real-money rewards for their spending. However,
they often migrate to engagement in conventional gambling
activities, with high rates of problem gambling. Several players of
Coin Master are under 18 years old, which is also a violation of
federal and state law, the suit says.

Moon Active Ltd. is a developer of mobile game applications, with a
principal place of business in Tel Aviv, Israel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

MOVING SOLUTIONS: Final Settlement Approval in Rider Suit Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an order modifying the order granting final settlement
approval in the lawsuit styled BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER for GARY MIDDLE
RIDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MOVING SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

On May 1, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
class action settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and
entered final judgment. Yet, on January 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs
notified the Court that one of the three Defendants--Moving
Solutions--has failed to pay its $20,000 portion of the $470,000
that was due to the settlement administrator on December 28, 2020.
To ensure a timely disbursement of settlement funds to the class,
the Plaintiffs' counsel proposed two alternatives.

On January 31, 2021, the Court ordered Moving Solutions and Moving
Solutions' principal, Rick Philpott, to show cause and to respond
to the Plaintiffs' proposals. In response, Moving Solutions and Mr.
Philpott filed a declaration under penalty of perjury on February
3, 2021. Mr. Philpott conceded that the Court has the authority to
issue sanctions for Moving Solutions' non-payment and represented
that Moving Solutions fully intends to contribute the funds
necessary if and when funds are available.

On February 5, 2021, the Court held a hearing with all parties and
Mr. Philpott. The parties and Mr. Philpott were unable to reach
agreement at the hearing. Thus, the Court referred the parties and
Mr. Philpott to a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge
Nathanael Cousins.

On February 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a status
report, which stated that the parties and Mr. Philpott did not
settle, and which proposed the below solution to ensure a timely
disbursement of all $470,000 to the settlement class. The Court
adopts the Plaintiffs' counsel's solution and modifies the Order
Granting Final Approval as follows:

   The Plaintiffs' counsel's fees will cover Moving Solutions'
   $20,000 shortfall. The Plaintiffs' counsel will receive only
   $97,500 from the funds deposited with the Class Administrator.
   However, the Plaintiffs' counsel retains the right to pursue
   collection of $20,000 in fees from Moving Solutions and/or its
   principals.

   None of the class members nor the class administrator will be
   affected by Moving Solutions' failure to timely contribute
   funds. All other terms and conditions of the Order Granting
   Final Approval remain in effect. Because the modification of
   the Order Granting Final Approval does not affect the rights
   and benefits of class members, no further notice is required.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/djbtbucw from Leagle.com.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: All Discovery, Proceedings in Cone Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings in the lawsuit captioned KRISTEN
CONE, individually and as personal representative of the estate of
James F. Cone, AND RICHARD EVANS, et al., individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-2543-JWB (D.
Kan.).

The Plaintiffs bring the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how they redeemed their homes after foreclosure. The parties
submitted a joint case-management report on February 19, 2021, in
which they discussed their views on whether discovery should be
stayed pending a ruling by the presiding U.S. District Judge, John
W. Broomes, on the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The Plaintiffs request that limited discovery goes
forward now, while the Defendant requests the Court stays discovery
pending Judge Broomes' ruling.

For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion.

As the Plaintiffs note, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion. However, the
Court has recognized a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is
likely to be finally concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the
facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of
the dispositive motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the
complaint would be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to
stay discovery ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the
Court. As a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case
determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion for judgment on the
pleadings and memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is
one of the rare instances in which staying discovery is justified.
The motion raises multiple, case-dispositive, legal issues, Judge
O'Hara finds. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the statute of limitations and are precluded by res
judicata. The Defendant also asserts the Plaintiffs lack standing
and that their claims are baseless.

If Judge Broomes agrees with the defendant on these arguments, the
action will be dismissed and any discovery in the interim would
have been wasteful and burdensome, Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara
holds. Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion for judgment
in its entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action
and could narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs do not contend they need discovery in order to
adequately respond to the dispositive motion. Staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
court and the parties, the Magistrate Judge adds.

It is, therefore, ordered that (1) all pretrial proceedings in this
case, including discovery and initial disclosures, are stayed until
further order of the Court, and (2) if the case remains pending
after Judge Broomes decides the motion to dismiss, the counsel will
confer and submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) planning report to the
Magistrate Judge's chambers within five business days of the
ruling. The Court will set a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4twkmfx6 from Leagle.com.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Certification of Loan Customer Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALAM RAZUKI and KENTON
MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No.
3:18-cv-03343-JD (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on April 8, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying their claims under Rule 23;

   2. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. certifying the following Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All mortgage loan customers of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
      d/b/a Mr. Cooper (or its subsidiaries) whose mortgage
      loan is for a one to-four family residence located
      in California and who paid Nationstar money in
      advance for payment of taxes and assessments on the
      property, for insurance, or for other purposes relating to
      the property, and did not receive, or timely receive,
      interest on the amount held by Nationstar."

Nationstar offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l10pBm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org

NCEP LLC: Hou-Seye FDCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOB HOU-SEYE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NCEP, LLC and AIS RECOVERY SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Case No. 2020SC001946, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Dane County, Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin on March 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00154 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

NCEP, LLC is a debt collection agency based in Nevada.

AIS Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Jon L. Farnsworth, Esq.
         SPENCER FANE LLP
         100 South 5th Street, Suite 2500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 268-7000
         Facsimile: (612) 268-7001
         E-mail: jfarnsworth@spencerfane.com

                - and –

         Tara A. Bailes, Esq.
         SPENCER FANE LLP
         2144 E. Republic Road, Suite B300
         Springfield, MO 65804
         Telephone: (417) 888-1000
         Facsimile: (417) 881-8035
         E-mail: tbailes@spencerfane.com

NEED A GENERAL: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEED A GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC., Defendant,
Case No. CACE-21-004457 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., March 3, 2021)
alleges the Defendant of violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has transmitted automated
text messages to her cellular telephone number ending in 6059 on or
about March 1, 2021 in an attempt to promote its services. At no
point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with her
express consent to be contacted by text messages using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The text messages
received by the Plaintiff appear to be generically formatted and
scripted which is an indication of the use of an ATDS.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals have been impacted and harmed by the unlawful
conduct of the Defendant. Thus, they seek injunctive relief and
monetary damages.

Need a General Contractors Inc. provides commercial and residential
construction 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 –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


NEW YORK: Court Wants Report on Issues in D.A. That Overlap w/ M.G.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled D.A. et al., Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-5175
(JMF) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York wants the parties to meet and confer regarding
alleged systemic issues in the case that do or do not overlap with
the M.G. class action.

As discussed at the initial pretrial conference on February 22,
2021, the Defendants will assess the extent to which they believe
the alleged systemic issues in the case do or do not overlap with
the M.G. class action. The parties will then meet and confer on
that issue, as well as whether any non-overlapping systemic issues
should be asserted in M.G. or some other class action.

By March 15, 2021, the parties will submit a joint letter of no
more than five pages setting forth their positions. The Court will
then schedule a conference if deemed necessary. In the meantime,
non-systemic discovery related specifically to the Plaintiffs' case
will go forward.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6wfr9hyv from Leagle.com.


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Disselkamp Class Settlement Wins Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA DISSELKAMP, et al.,
v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-GNS-CHL
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg N. Stivers entered an order:

   1. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;
      and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Conditional
      Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Class
      Settlement.

The Plaintiffs have asserted claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), with
respect to the Norton Healthcare 403(b) Retirement Savings Plan
(Plan) against the Defendants.

The terms of the Settlement are set out in a Stipulation of
Settlement executed on December 22, 2020, which has been signed by
Plaintiffs' Counsel on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class and
Defendants.

The "Settlement Class" is defined as

   "All persons, other than Defendants, who were participants as
   of January 22, 2012, in the Norton Healthcare 403(b)
   Retirement Savings Plan, including: (a) (i) beneficiaries of
   deceased participants who, as of January 22, 2012, were
   receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive
   benefit payments in the future, and (ii) alternate payees
   under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who, as of January
   22, 2012, were receiving benefit payments or will be entitled
   to receive benefit payments in the future; and (b) all
   persons, other than Defendants, who have been participants or
   beneficiaries in the Plan and had account balances in the
   Plan at any time between January 22, 2012, through the date
   of this Order.

   The "Class Period" is defined as January 22, 2012, through
   the date of this Order.

Norton Healthcare operates as a non profit health care
organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qIGYyI at no extra charge.[CC]


NTN BUZZTIME: Carlson Sues Over Failure to Hold Stockholder Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS CARLSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of NTN BUZZTIME, INC., Plaintiff v. ALLEN
WOLFF, MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, RICHARD SIMTOB, AND SUSAN MILLER, and NTN
BUZZTIME, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2021-0193 (Del. Ch., March 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties and violation of Section 211(c) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to have an annual
stockholder meeting within 13 months of the previous annual
stockholder meeting, which took place on June 7, 2019. Since then,
no annual stockholder meeting has been held, nor scheduled. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties, the
Plaintiff and other NTN stockholders have been harmed by preventing
them from participating in annual stockholder meeting.

NTN Buzztime, Inc. is a company that produces interactive
entertainment, headquartered in Carlsbad, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
         BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
         1204 N. King Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 803-4600

                - and –

         Donald J. Enright, Esq.
         Zachary B. Ness, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 524-4290

OMNICELL INC: June 4 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Heard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that oral argument on the
motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Corey
Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817, is set to be heard on
June 4, 2021.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July
31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the
case with the action Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest
Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161, pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion,
without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company's dismissal
from the Mazya Action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on
September 2, 2020.

The Court ruled from the bench and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by
September 30, 2020. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 30, 2020 and the Company subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on October 28, 2020.

The Company's motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and the Court
has scheduled oral argument on the motion for June 4, 2021.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


PARADIGM MANAGEMENT: AIP Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCED INTERVENTIONAL
PAIN & DIAGNOSTICS OF WESTERN ARKANSAS, LLC, v. PARADIGM MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, ADVA HOLDINGS, LLC, and ENCOMPASS SPECIALTY NETWORK,
LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02704-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the settlement class;

   3. directing that notice of the proposed Settlement be given
      to members of the Settlement Class in the proposed form
      and manner;

   4. scheduling a hearing before the Court to consider final
      approval of the Settlement and the Plaintiff's Counsel's
      request for attorneys' fees and expenses; and

   5. appointing KCC as the Settlement Administrator.

      The proposed Settlement:

      -- The Defendants have agreed to make available for the
         benefit of the Settlement Class a cash settlement fund
         that has a maximum value of $9,000,000.00, inclusive of
         Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Notice and Administration
         Costs.

      -- The Settlement Class shall include:

         "All persons and entities since December 20, 2015
         through the date of preliminary approval who held
         telephone numbers that received one or more telephone
         facsimile transmissions to the Second Amended
         Complaint, allegedly advertising the availability or
         quality of property, goods or services of Defendants,
         as identified on the Class List of 36,416 facsimile
         numbers;"

         Excluded from the Settlement Class are all current
         employees, officers, and directors of any Defendant,
         and the judge presiding over this Action and his staff.

      -- Each member of the Settlement Class may submit one
         claim per telephone number appearing on the Class List.
         Approved Claims will share in the distribution of the
         settlement benefits. The value of Approved Claims shall
         be calculated in accord with the following plan of
         allocation:

         (a) if the sum of Approved Claims, Attorneys' Fees and
             Costs, and Notice and Administration Costs is
             greater than $2,750,000.00 but less than
             $9,000,000.00, each Approved Claim will receive
             $250.00, which represents a fifty-percent recovery
             of the $500 statutory damages award under the TCPA
             (or a 16.6% recovery of the treble damages
             available in the case of willful violation);

         (b) if the sum of Approved Claims, Attorneys' Fees and
             Costs, and Notice and Administration Costs is
             greater than $9,000,000.00, each Approved Claim
             will be reduced on a pro rata basis; and

         (c) if the sum of Approved Claims, Attorneys' Fees and
             Costs, and Notice and Administration Costs is less
             than $2,750,000, each Approved Claim will be
             increased on a pro rata basis so that the total
             amount paid by the Defendants is $2,750,000. In no
             event shall Defendants pay more than $9,000,000.00
             or less than $2,750,000.00 under the terms of the
             Settlement.

On December 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against PMS,
in the Northern District of California, asserting it had violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as a result of its
alleged policy and practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements
without providing the requisite opt-out notices. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the junk-fax
ban provision, which may be trebled to $1,500 per violation if a
defendant's conduct is shown to be willful, knowing, or
intentional.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rDyhXD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Ballante, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 894-6745
          Facsimile: (727) 894-2649
          E-mail: nballante@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com

PENN CREDIT: Thomas TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. THOMAS, in his
capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Angela Michele
Gurzi, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PENN CREDIT,
CORPORATION, Case No. 6:19-cv-00823-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class consisting of:

      "All persons to whom one or more VoApps messages was
      successfully delivered to their cellular telephone number
      from Penn Credit, where Penn Credit obtained such phone
      number through a third-party skip trace, and where the
      name and ZIP code in Penn Credit's records match those of
      Sprint/T-Mobile, Verizon, or AT&T;"

   2. appointing himself as class representative;

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel; and

   4. directing the Defendant to produce the remainder of its
      class call and account-related records so that he can
      proceed to identify the remaining class members to
      effectuate notice to the class and secure judgment on
      their behalf.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant Penn Credit is a collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kZftPT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis St., Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          David Marco, Esq.
          SMITH MARCO, P.C.
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (888) 822-1777
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                  dmarco@smithmarco.com

PERI & SONS: Guzman Labor Suit Moved From S.D. to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LORENA SUAREZ GUZMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERI & SONS FARMS OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC; ROY ESTRADA; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01955, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on March 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00348-NONE-SKO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations,
and unfair competition.

Peri & Sons Farms of California, LLC is an onion grower based in
California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Anthony L. Hall, Esq.
         SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC
         6490 S. McCarran Blvd., Ste. F-46
         Reno, NV 89509
         Telephone: (775) 785-0088
         E-mail: AHall@SHJNevada.com

PETS GLOBAL: Gifford Sues Over Zignature Pet Foods' Deceptive Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GIFFORD, MARY LOU MOLINA, RANDY MILAND, and KAREN PERRI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PETS GLOBAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02136
(C.D. Cal., March 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California
Unfair Competition Law, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising and marketing of its pet food products
named the Zignature Limited Ingredient Diets. The Defendant
represented the products to include only limited ingredients,
specifically formulated for the health needs of dogs, meet its own
ingredient promises and warranties, and adhere to quality and
manufacturing standards. However, contrary to its representations,
the Zignature Limited Ingredient Diets contain significant amounts
of wheat and chicken, which are not disclosed in the labels.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased the
Zignature Limited Ingredient Diets, spending additional money for
the premium food and its promises, instead of cheaper dog food
alternatives that are known to contain wheat and/or chicken. They
would not have purchased the products had they known they contained
wheat and/or chicken, the suit says.

Pets Global Inc. is a pet food company with its principal place of
business located at 28334 Industry Drive, Valencia, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
                       
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormack Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         Lisa A. White, Esq.
         Arthur Stock, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC, 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 hunter@whitfieldbryson.com

PHC SERVICE: Casillas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHC SERVICE CO, LLC; CAMERON WALD;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08874
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay
overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all
wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, and failure to reimburse business-related
expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
August 26, 2019 until on or about August 22, 2020.

PHC Service Co, LLC is a health care services provider based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq., Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

PILLPACK LLC: Asks Court to Reconsider Feb. 12 Class Status Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PILLPACK LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05282-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant PillPack asks the
Court to reconsider its February 12, 2021, Order on Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60.

The Court's Order includes a determination that "Defendant does not
dispute that during the relevant period, the website opt-in forms
failed to list 'PillPack' as a Marketing Partner who could call the
proposed Class Members." PillPack's evidence in the
summary-judgment record shows otherwise, as Plaintiff expressly
pointed out in his class certification reply briefing. To the
extent the Court's decision to certify a class was informed by this
inaccurate assessment of the record, PillPack moves the Court to
reconsider.

The Plaintiff Williams seeks to represent a class of individuals
called by Prospects DM in its efforts to generate leads to transfer
to multiple companies, including PillPack and other pharmacies.
PillPack has argued, in opposing Williams' Motion for Class
Certification, that individualized issues of consent to be called
(among other issues) will predominate over questions common to the
class, making a class action not superior to other available
methods to adjudicate this dispute. In certifying the class, the
Court concluded that the website opt-in forms could support
class-wide adjudication of a narrowed class of persons "whose
telephone number was obtained by Prospects DM from Yodel
Technologies, LLC or Fluent, Inc."

PillPack provides pharmaceutical services. The Company operates a
full service pharmacy with online prescription management and
delivery.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
          Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq.
          MaryAnn T. Almeida, Esq.
          Sara A. Fairchild, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com
                  laurenrainwater@dwt.com
                  maryannalmeida@dwt.com
                  sarafairchild@dwt.com

PONY INDY: Dalton Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PONY INDY, LLC dba THE PONY INDY; CHARLES
GERALD WESTLUND, JR. a/k/a JERRY WESTLAND; MIKE WALLACE; MATT DOE;
BRANDY/BRANDI DOE; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00581-TWP-MJD (S.D.
Ind., March 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks,
unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.

The Plaintiff worked as dancer/entertainer at the Defendants'
principal place of business located at 3551 Lafayette Rd.,
Indianapolis, Indiana from approximately May 2017 through 2018.

Pony Indy, LLC is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment
facility under the name The Pony Indy located at 3551 Lafayette
Rd., Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Brian Custy, Esq.
         CUSTY LAW FIRM
         4004 Campbell St., Suite 4
         Valparaiso, IN 46385
         Telephone: (219) 286-7361
         Facsimile: (317) 458-2001
         E-mail: bcusty@custylaw.com

               - and –

         Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
         Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
         ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         1105 Milford Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-2377
         Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
         E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                 leigh@hughesellzey.com

PREMIER FINANCIAL: Deadline for Class Status Filing Set for May 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PFA INSURANCE MARKETING LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:18-cv-03771-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order modifying the case management
schedule as follows:

   Deadline to File Motion for Class          May 14, 2021
   Certification:

   Deadline to File Opposition to             June 15, 2021
   Class Certification:

   Deadline to File Reply on Class            July 9, 2021
   Certification:

   Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff :              August 6, 2021

   Deadline for Hearing Class                 August 24, 2021
   Certification Motion:

   Designation of Opening Experts             September 3, 2021
   with Reports:

   Designation of Rebuttal Experts            September 24, 2021
   with Reports:

   Expert Discovery Cutoff:                   October 8, 2021

   Dispositive and Daubert Motions            October 29, 2021
   to be filed by:

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the case management
schedule, previously modified by this Court on September 30, 2020.

PFA is a marketing broker company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30wHsNr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Sylvain Frayer, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sfrayer@girardsharp.com

The Attorney for Defendant Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., is:

          Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW, APC
          1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
          E-mail: MJHassen@reallaw.us

The Attorneys for the Defendant Life Insurance Company of the
Southwests, are:

          Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
          Rachel Adi Naor, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          560 Mission St., Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          E-mail: bo.phillips@alston.com
                  tom.evans@alston.com
                  rachel.naor@alston.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Ogurkiewicz Consumer Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as PAULA OGURKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00029, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:21-cv-02052-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unjust enrichment and
violations of the State Consumer Fraud Acts and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by engaging in
deceptive and false advertising and marketing of its laundry
detergent products under the Tide brand.

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 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 Ave. NW, Ste. 305
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dlietz@masonllp.com

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cowley Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA COWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-10491-SJM-DRG (E.D. Cal., Mar. 3, 2021) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Mr. Cowley was employed by the Defendant as security guard.

Prudential Security, Inc. provides security services. The Company
offers campus grounds, special events, industrial, residential
buildings, retail, government, investigative security services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Schneider Wallace Cottrell, Esq.
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com


QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAYTON SALTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
QUALITY CARRIERS INC., an Illinois Corporation; et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00479-JFW-JPR (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on April 5, 2021 to enter an order certifying a class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) consisting of:

   "All current and former drivers of the defendants who were
   domiciled at the defendants' California terminals and were
   classified as independent contractors and drove under the
   defendants' authority within four years prior to, and up
   until the resolution of, this lawsuit."

This case challenges an employer's misclassification of employees
as independent contractors. The employer in this case, a trucking
company named Quality Carriers, initially classified its truck
drivers as employees. To save money, however, Quality Carriers
started classifying some of its drivers as independent contractors
instead. The drivers' jobs stayed much the same. But their wages
changed significantly: Once the drivers were reclassified, the
company started passing along its business expenses to the drivers
in violation of California's wage-and-hour laws.

The misclassified workers, represented by one of the drivers,
Clayton Salter, sued Quality Carriers to recover lost wages. All of
the drivers' claims flow from the same theory of liability -- that
Quality illegally classified them as independent contractors.
Because that theory of liability applies equally to all of the
drivers that Quality classified as independent contractors, the
Plantiff contends.

The Plaintiff pursues claims described in his First Amended
Complaint for failure to provide meal and rest breaks; failure to
pay wages owed upon termination; failure to provide accurate,
itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses;
illegal wage deductions, and unfair and unlawful business practices
under California law against the Defendants.

Quality Carriers was founded in 2002. The Company's line of
business includes providing trucking transportation services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30symRZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Clayton Salter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  daniel@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com

              - and -

          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street NW Suite 312
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com
                  jennifer@guptawessler.com

R&J TRAILERS: Thompson Seeks Unpaid Customer Servicer Workers' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R&J TRAILERS, INC. and R&J TRAILERS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00071-JRG (E.D. Tex., March 3, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a customer
service worker, alleges that the Defendants did not pay him and
other similarly situated customer service workers overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
despite regularly working in excess of 50 hours per work week. In
addition, the Defendants failed to maintain records of their
customer service workers, the suit says.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated customer service
workers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages and overtime due to
them, as well as liquidated damages, litigation costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just.

The Corporate Defendants offer trailers and services and a number
of other services, such as custom builds, maintenance and repair.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: (903) 596-7100
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


REALOGY GROUP: Parties in Tanaskovic Suit Won't Pursue Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in Tanaskovic
v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey), agreed not to pursue the litigation any
further with each party bearing their own costs.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by
plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company about its business,
operations, and prospects.

The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this matter with
prejudice on January 21, 2021.

On February 18, 2021, the parties agreed not to pursue the
litigation any further with each party bearing their own costs.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Appeals Grant of Demurrer to Subsidiary
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in Whitlach
v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real
Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County), filed
a notice of appeal of the Court's order granting the demurrer filed
by the company's subsidiary.

This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M.

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate, as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's
independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could
potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century
21 in California.

In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA
claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil
penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA
claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as
defined by PAGA.

As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized
relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA,
as well as attorneys' fees.

Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege
that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real
estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates
and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to
pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed
to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to
provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for
business related expenses, resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code.

The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on
August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by
the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave
to replead.

On January 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's order granting the demurrer.

This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA
claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating
uncertainties.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Dyer Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY DYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00299-ELH (D. Md.), the
Parties will jointly move this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action,
and granting preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of
the following class:

   "All Maryland consumers who were sent collection letters
   and/or notices from the Defendant, during the period of
   February 05, 2019 to present, attempting to collect a
   consumer debt owed to or allegedly owed to Patient First,
   which included a $40.00 collection fee, when no such fee was
   expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt."

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which alleges RMS violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
that contained a fee not authorized by the agreement creating the
debt or authorized by law.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ev1wYG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam Sampson, Esq.
          Adam Sampson, Esq.
          ROLLINS SMALKIN RICHARDS & MACKIE, LLC
          300 East Lombard Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: 410-727-2443
          E-mail: asampson@rsrm.com

REDFIN CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to compel
arbitration in the class action suit initiated by Jason Bell, is
pending.

On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who is one of the company's
former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint is pled as a class action and alleges that, during
the time he served as an associate agent, the company misclassified
him as an independent contractor instead of an employee.

The plaintiff is also seeking representative claims under Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA).

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime
wages, regular wages, meal and rest period compensation, penalties,
injunctive, and other equitable relief, and plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 2, 2020, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and asserted that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate
his claims and had waived all class claims.

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate
brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes
in over 80 markets throughout the United States. The company is
based in Seattle, Washington.


RENO, NE: April 14 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE CASTELLANOS,
LAUREN COURTNEY, RACHEL JASPER, BRIANNA MORALES, VICTORIA RACHET,
LILY STAGNER, NATALEE WELLS, CECELIA WHITTLE, and MARYANN ROSE
BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
v. CITY OF RENO and MICHAEL CHAUMP, in his official capacity as
Business Relations Manager of Community Development and Business
Licenses for the CITY OF RENO and DOES I through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Parties agree and
stipulate to extend the due date for Defendants to file a
responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure from March 24, 2021, to April 14, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' reply memorandum shall be due no later than 14 days
after the Defendants file their opposition memorandum. Consistent
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), the extension of this deadline will
allow for the Defendants to respond to pending discovery, and is
not brought for any improper purpose or undue delay.

A copy of the parties motion dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38uAlJU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP KARL HALL
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NE 89511

The Attorneys for the Defendants City of Reno and Michael Chaump,
are:

          Karl S. Hall, Esq.
          William J. McKean, Esq.
          Chandeni K. Sendall, Esq.
          Post Office Box 1900
          Reno, NE 89505
          sTelephone: (775) 334-2050

RING LLC: Foster Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ring LLC. The case is
styled as Catherine Foster, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Ring LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-02175-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal., March 10,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ring LLC -- https://ring.com/ -- is a home security and smart home
company owned by Amazon. Ring manufactures home security products
that incorporate outdoor motion-detecting cameras, including Ring
Video Doorbell.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deepali Brahmbhatt, Esq.
          DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
          3120 Scott Boulevard No 13
          Santa Clara, CA 95054
          Phone: (650) 254-9805
          Email: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com


RODAN & FIELDS: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for June 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LEWIS, et al., v.
RODAN & FIELDS, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-02248-PJH (N.D. Calif.), the
Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting the
parties' joint stipulation and proposed order regarding renewal and
briefing of terminated motions.

The parties need not (and should not) refile any papers previously
filed in connection with such motions. The court sets the motion
for class certification, motion to exclude expert testimony, as
well as their related motions to seal for hearing via zoom at 1:30
pm on Thursday, June 3, 2021.

Based on the court's review of the docket, it also appears that the
defendant still needs to file a reply in support of its motion to
exclude. The Defendant must file that reply by Thursday, May 6,
2021. The court will decide the motion for a protective order and
its related motions to seal on the papers. The parties should
immediately notify the court if and when they reach a settlement in
principle.

Rodan & Fieldsis an American manufacturer and multi-level marketing
company specializing in skincare products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t8DtTQ at no extra charge.[CC]

RYDER LAST MILE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for March 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE CABRAL v. RYDER LAST
MILE, INC., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-62454-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Ursula Ungaro entered an order granting the parties' joint
motion for extension of deadline for Filing of Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and briefing deadlines.

The Plaintiff shall file a motion for conditional class
certification no later than March 23, 2021. Any opposing memorandum
of law, as well as any reply memorandum in support of such motion,
must be filed in accordance with the timeline set forth in S.D.
Fla. L.R. 7.1(c). All other deadlines remain in full force and
effect. No further extensions will be granted, the Court says.

Ryder Last Mile is located in New Albany, Ohio, and is part of the
truckload carriers industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t0EblG at no extra charge.[CC]

SALVAGED LIVES: Faces Alatriste Suit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ALATRISTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALVAGED LIVES RESOURCES LLC; BERNARD
HOLLOWAY; BILLY MAYBERRY; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21STCV09501 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 10,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code and the California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages when
employment ends, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to
give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a manager on or around
November 11, 2019 until on or around September 25, 2020.

Salvaged Lives Resources LLC is a limited liability company based
in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Johnson Suit Seeks to Certify Seven Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON;
CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; JANE DOE (ZAHIDA SHARIEF); SHAUNA LEE LANDIS;
JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; RAFAEL DIAZ; and all others
similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually; PAUL
WYNN, individually; JOE BILLINGS, individually; RICK BESSINGER,
individually; ROBERT GUILLEN, individually; Does 1 through 10, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on April 27, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7;

   2. appointing Marlon Johnson, Christopher Crowell, Shauna Lee
      Landis, Janielle 8 Guzman, Gerald Wayne Crutcher, and
      Rafael Diaz as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Skapik Law Group as class counsel.

      -- Class One is defined as persons who were strip-searched
         and whose criminal 11 cases were pending within the
         Statute of Limitation, as extended by the tolling
         provisions set forth in California Code of Civil
         Procedure section 352.1, California Government Code
         section 945.3 and California Civil Code section 338(a),
         which extends the class period 3 years prior to the
         filing of the lawsuit, and up to the time that the
         practice ceases, or the time of judgment or settlement
         of the case: (1) were in San Bernardino County
         Sheriff's Department ("SBSD") custody; (2) were booked
         on a charge not involving violence or possession of
         drugs or weapons; (3) were strip / visual body cavity
         searched before their arraignment absent reasonable
         suspicion or probable cause that the individual is in
         possession of weapons or drugs, before being placed in
         a COUNTY jail facility."

      -- Class Two is defined as persons who were strip-searched
         within the Statute of Limitation, as extended by the
         tolling provisions set forth in California Code of
         Civil Procedure section 352.1, California Government
         Code section 945.3 and California Civil Code section
         338(a), which extends the class period 3 years prior to
         the filing of the lawsuit, and up to the time the
         practice ceases, or the time of judgment or settlement
         of the case: (1) were in SBSD custody; (2) were taken
         from jail to court; and (3) were strip and/or visual
         body cavity searched before and or after their court
         visit.

      -- Class Three is defined as persons who were strip-
         searched within the Statute of Limitation, as extended
         by the tolling provisions set forth in California Code
         of Civil Procedure section 352.1, California Government
         Code section 945.3 and California Civil Code section
         338(a), which extends the class period 3 years prior to
         the filing of the lawsuit and up to the time that the
         practice ceases, or the time of judgment or settlement
         of the case: (1) were in SBSD Custody; (2) were
         subjected to a strip and/or visual body cavity search
         in a  manner that would be illegal and against the
         Sheriff's established policy and protocol for such
         searches as well as for persons covered by Cal. Penal
         Code section 4030(b) in that the searches are conducted
         without affording the persons searched privacy from
         others, including but not limited to, privacy from
         members of the opposite sex.

      -- Class Four is defined as persons who were strip
         searched within the Statute of Limitation, as extended
         by the tolling provisions set forth in California Code
         of Civil Procedure section 352.1, California Government
         Code section 945.3 and California Civil Code section
         338(a), which extends the class period 3 years prior to
         the filing of the lawsuit and up to the time that
         the practice ceases, or the time of judgment
         or settlement of the case: (1) were in SBSD custody;
         (2) were subjected to a strip and/or visual body cavity
         search in an unreasonable and unconstitutional manner,
         including but not limited to any of the following: the
         conduct of such searches in the presence of other
         Detainees or Inmates, the conduct of such searches in
         an overly intrusive or aggressive or abusive manner,
         the conduct of such searches in the presence of persons
         not necessary to the search, or the conduct of such
         searches in an unhygienic manner.

      -- Class Five is defined as persons who were strip
         searched within the Statute of Limitation, as extended
         by the tolling provisions set forth in California Code
         of Civil Procedure section 352.1, California Government
         Code section 945.3 and California Civil Code section
         338(a), which extends the class period 3 years prior to
         the filing of the lawsuit and up to the time that the
         practice ceases, or the time of judgment or settlement
         of the case: (1) were in SBSD custody; (2) were
         transported to or from another County jail; and (3)
         were subjected to strip and/or visual body cavity
         searches before transport.

      -- Class Six is defined as all pre-arraignment detainees
         who were arrested within the Statute of Limitation, as
         extended by the tolling provisions set forth in
         California Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1,
         California Government Code section 945.3 and California
         Civil Code section 338(a), which extends the class
         period 3 years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and
         up to the time that the practice ceases, or the time of
         judgment or settlement of the case, for infraction or
         misdemeanor offenses, except those involving weapons,
         controlled substance or violence, who were, are or will
         be held in Defendants' custody and who, because of such
         detention, were or will be strip-searched pursuant to
         SBSD custom, policy or procedure within the Statute of
         Limitation, as extended by the tolling provisions set
         forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section
         352.1, California Government Code section 945.3 and
         California Civil Code section 338(a), which extends the
         class period 3 years prior to the filing of the
         lawsuit: (1) without a reasonable suspicion based on
         specific or articulable facts that the detainee
         possessed a weapon or contraband that would be found as
         a result of the strip search; (2) without prior written
         authorization of the supervising officer on duty
         identifying the specific and articulable facts and
         circumstances upon which the reasonable suspicion
         determination was made by the supervisor in violation
         of the detainees' Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth
         Amendments rights and in violation of California Penal
         Code section 4030.

      -- Class Seven is defined as all pre-arraignment detainees
         who were, are, or will be held in Defendants' custody,
         within the Statute of Limitation, as extended by the
         tolling provisions set forth in California Code of
         Civil Procedure section 352.1, California Government
         Code section 945.3 and California Civil Code section
         338(a), which extends the class period 3 years prior to
         the filing of the lawsuit, and up to the time that the
         practice ceases, or the time of judgment or settlement
         of the case, who, because of such detention, were or
         will be strip searched pursuant SBSD custom, policy or
         procedure: (11) without a reasonable suspicion based on
         specific and articulable facts that the detainee
         possessed a weapon or contraband that would be found as
         a result of the strip search; (2) without prior written
         authorization of the supervising officer on duty
         identifying the specific and articulable facts and
         circumstances upon which the reasonable suspicion
         determination was made by the supervisor in violation
         of the detainees' Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth
         Amendments rights and/or in violation of California
         Penal Code section 4030.

The case addresses the unconstitutional and unlawful
strip-searching of thousands of detained individuals and housed
jail inmates conducted pursuant to a blanket policy and/or practice
implemented by the Defendants, County of San Bernardino's Sheriff's
Department (SBSD), at the Defendants detention and jail
facilities.

The Plaintiffs allege that were all strip and visual-body-cavity
searched (strip-searched) pursuant to the Defendants' blanket
policy and/or practice, when admitted to County of San Bernardino
jail facilities, when to and returning from court hearings, and
upon transfer to other County jail facilities.

San Bernardino County is a county located in the southern portion
of the U.S. state of California, and is located within the Inland
Empire area.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OHIaET
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Mark J. Skapik, Esq.
         Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
         Blair J. Berkley, Esq.
         SKAPIK LAW GROUP
         5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-1
         Chino Hills, California 91709
         Telephone: (909) 398-4404
         Facsimile: (909) 398-1883
         Email: mskapik@skapiklaw.com
         gskapik@skapiklaw.com
         bberkley@skapiklaw.com

              - and -

         Eric Christopher Morris, Esq.
         SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP
         5861 Pine Ave. Suite A-1
         Chino Hills, Ca 91709
         Telephone: (909) 398-4404
         E-mail: eric.c.morris@gmail.com

SARASOTA, FL: Grames et al., Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM GRAMES, BROOKE
GRAMES, CRAIG B. DICKIE, CYNTHIA D. DICKIE, JUDY H. JOHNSON, JAMES
KOSTAN, DIANE KOSTAN, PATRICK J. LOYET and LISA A. LOYET, v.
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.
8:20-cv-00739-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards
Honeywell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class Counsel.

According to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
Complaint, the putative class consists of:

   "Those Sarasota County landowners who have filed claims for
   compensation in the United States Court of Federal Claims and
   to whom Sarasota County issued demands or threats requiring
   that the owners remove existing structures or other
   improvements from their property."

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs claim that a class action is
superior because individual lawsuits will result in greater
manageability problems, repeated adjudication of similar
controversies, and excessive costs. The Defendants respond that the
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that a class action is superior to
other alternatives. "[T]he superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)
turns on whether a class action is better than other available
methods of adjudication." In undertaking this comparison, courts
consider whether "a class action create[s] more manageability
problems than its alternatives" and "how do the manageability
concerns compare with the other advantages or disadvantages of a
class action." Given the individualized inquiries the Court must
undertake regarding the respective deeds and property-specific
structures, class adjudication is not necessarily superior. As
pointed out by the Defendants, the landowners have been able to
adequately pursue individual claims in the Court of Federal Claims.
The need to present evidence specific to each class member defeats
the benefits and efficiencies obtained through class treatment. The
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating a
class action is superior to other mechanisms such as joinder of
plaintiffs or consolidation of similar claims. Thus, Plaintiffs
fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)’s requirements."

This is a rails-to-trails case concerning a 7.68-mile line of
railroad in Sarasota County, Florida that extends the federal
Legacy Trail between Sarasota and Venice. The Legacy Trail is a
public recreational trail and a rail-trail corridor easement the
federal government "railbanked" under the National Trails System
Act.

The Plaintiffs, William and Brooke Grames, Craig B. and Cynthia D.
Dickie, Judy H. Johnson, James and Diane Kostan, and Patricia J.
and Lisa A. Loyet are Florida landowners who seek a declaration of
the respective rights to their property and to enjoin Sarasota
County from removing or demolishing their private property in order
to extend the Legacy Trail until they are justly compensated.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs sue, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated the Defendants in a
six-count Complaint for declaratory relief, quiet title, injunctive
relief, just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, damages under the Uniform Relocation Act, and
compensation under Article X, Section 6 of the Florida
Constitution.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OIxuWG at no extra charge.[CC]

SCOTT CROW: Cole Seeks to Certify Case as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steven L. Cole v. Scott
Crow, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00655-G (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the case as class
action.

The cause of action pertains to questions of constitutional
violations of equal protection / treatment, deprivation of liberty,
and due process protections guaranteed by the 5th and 14th
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 26,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cl6WTu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Steven L. Cole
          WSKCC, PO Box 61
          Fort Supply, OK 73841

SELECTIVE INSURANCE: In the Park Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs In the Park Savoy Caterers LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN THE PARK
SAVOY CATERERS LLC t/a THE PARK SAVOY and IN THE PARK CHATEAU
CATERERS LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, INC. and SELECTIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-06869, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 11, 2020, the
lawsuit is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to seek a
declaratory judgment affirming that the COVID-19 pandemic and the
corresponding response by civil authorities to stop the spread of
the outbreak triggers coverage, which coverage provides for future
civil authority orders that result in future suspensions or
curtailments of business operations; and that the pandemic has
caused physical property loss and damage to the insured property,
and Defendants are liable for the losses suffered by policyholders.


In addition, the action brought a claim against Defendants for
their breach of their contractual obligation under common all risk
commercial property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses,
and related losses resulting from actions taken by civil
authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human spread
of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Defendants, and most insurance companies who have issued all-risk
commercial property insurance policies with business interruption
coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put
in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19
among the population.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
February 25, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as In the Park Savoy Caterers LLC,
et al. v. Selective Insurance Group Inc, et al., Case No. 21-1414,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, March
4, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants IN THE PARK SAVOY CATERERS LLC, t/a The Park
Savoy, and IN THE PARK CHATEAU CATERERS LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com  

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 693-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

Defendants-Appellees SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP INC. and SELECTIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. are represented by:

          Laura A. Brady, Esq.
          William T. Corbett, Jr., Esq.
          COUGHLIN DUFFY
          350 Mount Kemble Avenue
          P.O. Box 1917
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 631-6010
          E-mail: lbrady@coughlinduffy.com
                  wcorbett@coughlinduffy.com

SHRED-IT USA: Bid to Dismiss & Compel Arbitration in Poston Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina denied as moot the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in the lawsuit
captioned CEDRIC POSTON and KENNETH BLANCHETT, Plaintiffs v.
SHRED-IT USA LLC, and STERICYCLE INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-CV-655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

The motion was filed on January 27, 2021, has been referred to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b), and
immediate review is appropriate.

Judge Keesler observes that the Plaintiffs filed a "First Amended
Collective And Class Action Complaint" on February 17, 2021. The
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint follows an Order from the Court
allowing them an extension of time to respond to the pending motion
to dismiss, or in the alternative, to file an Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. It appears that the Plaintiffs have
timely-filed their amended pleading.

Judge Keesler notes that it is well settled that a timely-filed
amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions
directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot, citing
Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001).

To the extent the Defendants contend the Amended Complaint is
deficient, the Order is without prejudice to the Defendants filing
a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, as appropriate,
Judge Keesler ruled.

Hence, the Defendants' Motion To Dismiss And Compel Arbitration,
And/Or In The Alternative, Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A
Claim is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zcjakaye from Leagle.com.


STAAR SURGICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
STAAR Surgical Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended January 1, 2021, that the lead plaintiff in
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re STAAR
Surgical Co. Securities Litigation., filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the lawsuit, which dismissed the lead plaintiff's
claims with prejudice as to him, and without prejudice as to any
absent putative class members.

On August 19, 2020, a putative federal securities class action,
Alwazaan v. STAAR Surgical Co., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

On September 1, 2020, a substantially similar federal securities
class action, Zhang v. STAAR Surgical Co., et al., was filed
against the Company and the same executives in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On September 11, 2020, the court consolidated the two actions under
the caption In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities Litigation.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company made material
misstatements regarding its sales in China, its marketing spend,
and its R&D expenses.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.  

On October 29, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On January 15, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the lawsuit, which dismissed the lead plaintiff's
claims with prejudice as to him, and without prejudice as to any
absent putative class members.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used
to deliver the lenses into the eye. The company is based in Lake
Forest, California.

STERICYCLE INC: April 2 Extension OK'd for Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP DANIEL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STERICYCLE INC.;
and SHRED-IT USA LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.),
the Hon Judge David Keesler entered an order granting 30-day
extension of time, through and including April 2, 2021, within
which the Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action.

On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional
Certification. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification currently is due on or before March 3,
2021. The Defendants say that they require additional time to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification due to
numerous professional and personal commitments of their counsel.

Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods. It also provides related education
and training services, and patient communication services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bywcXuat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq.
          Richard W. Black, Esq.
          Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
          Meredith L. Schramm-Strosser, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Bank of America Corporate Center
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4150
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 972-7000
          Facsimile: (704) 333-4005
          E-mail: jwalters@littler.com
                  rblack@littler.com
                  jwaxman@littler.com
                  mschramm-strosser@littler.com

STERICYCLE INC: Seeks April 2 Extension of Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP DANIEL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STERICYCLE INC.;
and SHRED-IT USA LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.),
the Defendants move the Court for an order granting 30-day
extension of time, through and including April 2, 2021, within
which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
Collective Action.

The Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, consent to this
proposed extension.

On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Conditional
Certification. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification currently is due on or before March 3,
2021. The Defendants say that they require additional time to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification due to
numerous professional and personal commitments of their counsel.

Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods. It also provides related education
and training services, and patient communication services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t4ow51 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq.
          Richard W. Black, Esq.
          Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
          Meredith L. Schramm-Strosser, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Bank of America Corporate Center
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4150
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 972-7000
          Facsimile: (704) 333-4005
          E-mail: jwalters@littler.com
                  rblack@littler.com
                  jwaxman@littler.com
                  mschramm-strosser@littler.com

STOCKPILE INC: Winzig Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Thomas S. Winzig, an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockpile, Inc.,
Stockpile Investments, Inc. Delaware Corporations; Does 1 through
50, and each of them, Case No. 21STCV03823 was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 10, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02170 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Stockpile, Inc. -- http://www.stockpile.com/-- operates as a
brokerage firm. The Company buys and sells securities such as
stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Rossiter Callaway, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 Marshall Street
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Phone: (650) 752-3100
          Fax: (650) 853-1038
          Email: dcallaway@goodwinlaw.com



T K PROMOTIONS: Ferrer Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINET D. FERRER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T K PROMOTIONS, INC. d/b/a BT'S GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB, GREGG BERGER and MIKE BERGER, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-20929 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying the Plaintiff and Class members as independent
contractors and failing to pay them minimum wages and overtime at
the required rate.

The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at BT'S Gentlemen's Club
located at 5922 S. Dixie Highway, South Miami, Florida from
approximately April 2015 to April 15, 2019.

T K Promotions, Inc. is an owner and operator of an adult
entertainment club named BT'S Gentlemen's Club located at 5922 S.
Dixie Highway, South Miami, Florida. [BN]

The 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
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

TANDEM DIABETES: Demurrer in Deluna Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's
demurrer filed in the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Joseph Deluna et al v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., is pending.

In May 2020 the Company was named as a defendant in three
California state court class action lawsuits arising from a data
breach the Company experienced in January 2020.

Collectively, these lawsuits seek statutory, compensatory, actual,
and punitive damages; equitable relief, including restitution; pre-
and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; and attorney fees,
costs, and expenses from the Company.

On July 24, 2020, these three pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a single case in the Superior Court of the State of California
in the County of San Bernardino entitled Joseph Deluna et al v.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

The consolidated case alleges violations of the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (CMIA), California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of
contract.

The Company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of all claims, which
was heard by the Court on October 27, 2020, and which resulted in
the following outcome: (i) the demurrer of the CMIA claim was
denied; and (ii) the demurrer of the CCPA, UCL, and contract claims
were sustained with leave to amend the pending complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on November
25, 2020 and the Company filed a demurrer to such second amended
complaint on December 28, 2020.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin
infusion therapy.


TARGET CORPORATION: Colon Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NESTOR COLON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010383, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00432-MCE-DB 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 unlawful deductions from wages, inaccurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair or unlawful business practices.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation, headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Samantha C. Grant, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
         Telephone: (310) 228-3700
         Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
         E-mail: sgrant@sheppardmullin.com

                  - and –

         Lucky Meinz, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: lmeinz@sheppardmullin.com

                  - and –

         Harrison Thorne, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
         Telephone: (213) 620-1780
         Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
         E-mail: hthorne@sheppardmullin.com

TOTAL INSURANCE: June 21 Extension for Class Status Filing OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perrong v. Total Insurance
Brokers, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
James S Moody, Jr entered an endorsed order granting Unopposed
Motion to Extend Class Certification Deadline to June 21, 2021.

The suit involves Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.

Total Insurance is located in Tampa, Florida, and is part of the
health insurance carriers industry.[CC]


TOTAL INSURANCE: June 21 Extension for Class Status Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW PERRONG,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, et al., Case
No. 8:20-cv-01905-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his unopposed motion to extend the class
certification deadline.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the class
certification deadline from March 3, 2021 to June 21, 2021, which
is also the current deadline for Plaintiff to disclose expert
witnesses.

On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed this putative class action
against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act..
On September 24, 2020, Defendant answered the complaint. On October
1, 2020, the parties participated in a Rule 26 conference. On
October 8, 2020, the Plaintiff served a first set of discovery on
the Defendant, to which, due to the Defendant's request for an
extension, a response is anticipated on November 23, 2020.

On October 19, 2020, Defendant identified two third-party vendors
with relevant documents and information, and, on October 21, 2020,
the Plaintiff issued subpoenas to those third-parties.

On November 5, 2020, the Plaintiff moved to extend the presumptive
Local Rule 4.04(b) class certification deadline from November 13,
2020 to March 3, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3erbYjZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the putative class, are:

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

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sherisce Moore, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc.,
John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 1:21-cv-04751-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., March
10, 2021).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a
market-leading provider of accounts receivable management and
student loan servicing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 273-7117
          Fax: (201) 273-7117
          Email: ykim@kimlf.com


TRUIST FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust
Bank.

This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court
on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010.

Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia.

Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received. On October 6,
2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen who
had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from
July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one overdraft of
$500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction
(the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a result of
the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of those Fees"
and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal.

On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion seeking to narrow the
scope of this class and on May 29, 2020, it filed a renewed motion
to compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members.

On February 9, 2021, the trial court denied both motions as
premature but held that the issues could be raised again after the
conclusion of discovery, which is currently underway.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit.

Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its
business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist
Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries.

TULA INC: Faces Carpenter Suit Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY CARPENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TULA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01856 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its Tula
Cosmetics by claiming the product contain probiotics (the
"Probiotics Claims").

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells the
Tula Cosmetics as cosmetics containing "probiotics." However, the
Tula Cosmetics do not contain probiotics because the microbial
derived ingredients assigned the "probiotic" moniker are purchased
in a dead state. Also, the preservatives, i.e. antimicrobial
chemicals, employed in the Tula Cosmetics would render any
probiotic cultures inert and therefore useless, the suit says.

Tula Life, Inc. owns and operates beauty supply stores. The Company
offers anti-aging cream, cleanser, serum, skincare, and other
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

               -and-

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


U.S. BANK: All Discovery and Proceedings in Kehler Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DENNIS KEHLER, et al., individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. U.S.
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-2486-JWB (D. Kan.), the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas stays all discovery and
pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the dispositive motion.

The Plaintiffs bring the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how the Plaintiffs redeemed their homes after foreclosure. The
parties submitted a joint case-management report on February 19,
2021, in which they discussed their views on whether discovery
should be stayed pending a ruling by the presiding U.S. District
Judge, John W. Broomes, on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs request that
limited discovery goes forward now, while the Defendant requests
the Court stays discovery pending Judge Broomes' ruling.

For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion.

As the Plaintiffs note, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, says
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. However, the Court has recognized
a stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
notes that the motion to dismiss raises multiple, case-dispositive,
legal issues. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the statute of limitations, and are precluded by res
judicata and collateral estoppel. The Defendant also asserts the
Plaintiffs lack standing and failed to adequately plead the
elements of their claims.

If Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant on any of these
arguments, the action will be dismissed and any discovery in the
interim would have been wasteful and burdensome, Judge O'Hara
opines. Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss
in its entirety, his ruling will frame the course of this action
and could narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs do not contend they need discovery in order to
adequately respond to the dispositive motion. Staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
Court and the parties, Judge O'Hara adds.

The Court, therefore, ruled that:

   1. all pretrial proceedings in the case, including discovery
      and initial disclosures, are stayed until further order of
      the Court; and

   2. if the case remains pending after Judge Broomes decides the
      motion to dismiss, counsel will confer and submit a Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(f) planning report to Judge O'Hara's chambers
      within five business days of the ruling. The Court will set
      a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2m5wfhtb from Leagle.com.


UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Maryland Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action suit entitled, In re Under
Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB, is
pending.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland were consolidated under the caption In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB.

On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
Securities Action, Aberdeen City Council as Administrating
Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named
plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, the Company's
then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief
Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that
the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding,
among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products.

The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's public offering
of senior unsecured notes in June 2016. The Securities Act claims
were asserted against the Company, Mr. Plank, Mr. Molloy, the
Company's directors who signed the registration statement pursuant
to which the offering was made and the underwriters that
participated in the offering.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with
prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. Lead
plaintiff Aberdeen, joined by named plaintiff Monroe County
Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a Second Amended Complaint on
November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and
naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants.

The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the
District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

In September 2019, plaintiffs Aberdeen and Bucks County filed an
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19,
2018 and August 19, 2019. The Appeal was fully briefed as of
January 16, 2020.

On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two purported shareholders of
the Company filed putative securities class actions in the District
Court against the Company and certain of its current and former
executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03209-RDB, and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB, respectively.

The complaints in Patel and Waronker alleged violations of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants,
and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the current and former officers named in the complaints.

The complaints claimed that the defendants' disclosures and
statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company
was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly
to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by
and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July
2017.

On November 18, 2019, Aberdeen, the lead plaintiff in the
Consolidated Securities Action, filed in the District Court a
motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62.1 seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged
that purported newly discovered evidence entitled Aberdeen to
relief from the District Court's final judgment. Aberdeen also
filed motions seeking (i) to consolidate the Patel and Waronker
cases with the Consolidated Securities Action, and (ii) to be
appointed lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases.

On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted Aberdeen's Rule
62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief
from the final judgment and provide Aberdeen with the opportunity
to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remanded
for that purpose.

The District Court further stated that it would, upon remand,
consolidate the Patel and Waronker cases with the Consolidated
Securities Action and appoint Aberdeen as the lead plaintiff over
the consolidated cases.

On August 13, 2020, the Fourth Circuit remanded the Appeal to the
District Court for the limited purpose of allowing the District
Court to rule on Aberdeen's motion seeking relief from the final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting
that relief. The District Court's order also consolidated the Patel
and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action and
appointed Aberdeen as lead plaintiff over the Consolidated
Securities Action.

On October 14, 2020, Aberdeen, along with named plaintiffs Monroe
and KBC Asset Management NV, filed a third amended complaint (the
TAC) in the Consolidated Securities Action, asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company
and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr.
Plank.

The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed
purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter
of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by
engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting
practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods
allegedly to appear healthier.

The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with DOJ and the SEC since July 2017. The class period
identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1,
2019.

On December 4, 2020, the Company and Mr. Plank filed a motion to
dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim. Briefing on the
motion to dismiss is expected to be completed in March 2021.

Under Armour said, "The Company continues to believe that the
claims asserted in the Consolidated Securities Action are without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However,
because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this
proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible impact of this matter."

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNITED AIRLINES: Simoni Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN SIMONI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC.; UNITED
AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2021CH00526, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 5, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01267 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract
concerning the collection of redeposit fees for cancelled award
travel through the Defendants' MileagePlus award program.

United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded airline holding
company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

United Airlines, Inc. is an American airline company, with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq.
         Sondra A. Hemeryck, Esq.
         RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
         70 W. Madison St., Suite
         2900 Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 471-8700
         Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
         E-mail: pholmes@rshc-law.com
                 shemeryck@rshc-law.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Complaint Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY G. and GARY G.,
individually and as representative of the class of similarly
situated individuals, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE and UNITED BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, Case No. 2:17-cv-00413-DN-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
David Nuffer entered an order denying the Plaintiffs motion to
amend their complaint to add a cause of action under the Mental
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (Parity Act) and to
modify and add to their class allegations.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs argue that their proposed amended
complaint addresses the inadequacies of the Complaint's class
allegations that were identified in the Order Denying Class
Certification. This argument lacks merit. The Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class was denied because the proposed class failed to
satisfy the commonality requirement of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a) and
each of F ED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)'s requirements. The Order Denying
Class Certification identified in detail numerous deficiencies in
Plaintiffs' class allegations. The Plaintiffs' proposed amendments
do little to correct these deficiencies. The Plaintiffs still fail
to define a proposed class based on shared medical conditions and
the type of wilderness therapy programs for which coverage was
sought. The lack of commonality among the proposed class's
circumstances (including medical conditions, plan requirements,
wilderness program types, and available relief) prevent
certification. "[M]ere allegations of systematic violations [do]
not automatically satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement."
The Plaintiffs' proposed amendments also fail to address the
deficiencies the Order Denying Class Certification identified
regarding Rule 23(b)'s requirements. The newly proposed class
members are not sufficiently similarly situated to suggest that
separate actions would lead to inconsistent adjudications or
adjudications that would be dispositive for those not party to an
individual adjudication. The proposed amendments also fail to
account for the many resolutive variations that would be needed to
satisfy class members' individual circumstances (whether that be
monetary damages or declaratory or injunctive relief). And
regardless of the existence of the alleged uniform policy of
exclusion, the proposed class members' circumstances are too varied
for there to be a common question capable of a common class-wide
resolution. Individualized questions of law and fact predominate
and a class action is not a superior method for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Therefore, because the
proposed amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies
identified in the Order Denying Class Certification, permitting
Plaintiffs to amend their class allegations would be futile.

UnitedHealth is an American for-profit managed health care company
based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It offers health care products and
insurance services. In 2020, it was the second-largest healthcare
company by revenue with $257.1 billion, and the largest insurance
company by Net Premiums.

A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order denying motion
to amend dated March 1, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2N929vU at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSAL TRUCKLOAD: Mack Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES MACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL TRUCKLOAD, LLC; UNIVERSAL
TRUCKLOAD, INC.; UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2028524, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 8, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00418 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code by failing to reimburse business expenses.

Universal Truckload, LLC is a trucking transportation services
company with its principal place of business in San Bernardino,
California.

Universal Truckload, Inc. is a trucking transportation company,
headquartered in California.

Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc. is a transportation and
logistics solutions company based in Michigan. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Christian Keeney, Esq.
         Sarah Christenson, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com
                 sarah.christenson@ogletree.com

USI INSURANCE: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Cunningham Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; USI 401(k) PLAN
COMMITTEE; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
7:21-cv-01819 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2021) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that the Defendants placed
their interests ahead of the interests of the Plaintiff and other
Plan participants and beneficiaries by using a subsidiary of USI,
USI Consulting Group ("USICG"), to provide the retirement plan
services ("RPS") to the Plan. The decision to use USI's in-house
consulting group cannot be justified in light of the excessive and
unreasonable amount of RPS fees paid to USICG. This decision was
disloyal to the Plan participants because it elevated the
Defendants' financial interests above the interests of Plan
participants, the suit says.

The Plaintiff was allegedly injured by the Defendants' actions
because the Defendants permitted all Plan participants to be
charged excessive RPS fees, which reduced the Plaintiff's and other
Plan participants' account balances and caused them significantly
diminished investment returns.

USI Insurance Services, LLC offers diversified insurance and
financial services. The Company provides integrated distribution of
general and specialty property and casualty insurance, as well as
financial services including employee benefits outsourcing and
related consulting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Paul R. Wood, Esq.
          Timothy L. Foster, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  woodp@fdazar.com
                  fostert@fdazar.com

               -and-

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com


VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Revised Bid for FLSA Conditional Cert. Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA ROPER v. VERIZON
PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-05270-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of and authorizing the dissemination of her proposed
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Notice to:

"all people who have worked as a full-time, hourly-paid,
phone-based Customer Service or Sales employees for Verizon
Pennsylvania LLC in any week during the maximum limitations
period."

The Plaintiff moves the Court under the "opt-in" mechanism for
collective actions provided by the FLSA.

Verizon, formerly traded as Bell of Pennsylvania, is the Bell
Operating Company serving most of Pennsylvania. The company was
founded in 1879 as Bell Telephone Company of Philadelphia, owned by
National Bell Telephone Company, which later became American Bell.

A copy of the Plaintiff's revised motion for FLSA Conditional
Certification dated Feb. 26, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vixfTh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836

VIMAL INC: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Website's Room Access Features
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIMAL, INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 21LBCV00123 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Hyland Inn on its
reservation Website at http://www.hylandmotellongbeach.com/for
people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Vimal, Inc. is an owner and operator of the Hyland Inn located at
2471 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, California. [BN]

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

WARNER MUSIC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York appoints Gayle Blatt and Jean Martin
as interim co-lead counsel in the consolidated lawsuit styled IN
RE: WARNER MUSIC GROUP DATA BREACH, Case No. 20 Civ. 7473 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Warner Music Group owns and operates several record
labels, a music publisher, and websites selling merchandise and
music for thousands of the recording artists it represents. On
September 2, 2020, Warner Music Group announced that it had been
the target of a "magecart" hack between April 25, 2020, and August
5, 2020, in which customers' identification and credit card
information was obtained from the Defendant's e-commerce platform.

The Combs Complaint was filed on September 11, 2020, and alleges
claims for negligence and negligence per se, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and violation of New York General Business Law
Section 349. Eight related complaints followed. On October 16,
2020, the Plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion to consolidate,
and on November 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the nine cases for
all purposes under the caption In re Warner Music Group Data Breach
(Nov. 10, 2020 Order).

On October 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Levi Combs, Esteban Trujillo,
Christie Kuhn, Susan Cakl, Raistlin Beardsly, Nicholas Cimaglio,
Ali Gutierrez, and Ashley Foster moved to appoint Gayle Blatt and
Jean Martin as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and for the
appointment of an Executive Committee.

The motion was initially unopposed, but as additional related cases
were filed, certain Plaintiffs' counsel did not consent to the
proposed leadership structure. On November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Noah
Watts moved to appoint William B. Federman as Interim Co-Lead
Counsel, or alternatively to the Executive Committee. On November
10, 2020, the Court set December 14, 2020, as the deadline for any
further briefing regarding the appointment of interim lead
counsel.

There are two competing motions for appointment of interim co-lead
counsel. Plaintiffs Levi Combs and Christie Kuhn propose that Jean
Martin of Morgan & Morgan and Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP be appointed interim co-lead
counsel. Combs and Kuhn further propose that an executive committee
be formed that is comprised of counsel in five of the related
cases: Melissa Emert (Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.); M.
Anderson Berry (Arnold Law Firm); Lori G. Feldman (George Gesten
McDonald, PLLC); Janine Pollack (Calcaterra Pollack LLP); Carl
Malmstrom (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP); and Yitzchak
Kopel (Bursor & Fisher, P.A.). Martin and Blatt would assign
pleadings, discovery and briefing responsibilities to executive
committee members. Counsel representing seven other named
Plaintiffs have filed declarations in support of the Combs and Kuhn
application.

Plaintiff Noah Watts seeks the appointment of William B. Federman
of Federman & Sherwood as interim co-lead counsel, or
alternatively, as a member of the executive committee proposed by
Combs and Kuhn. On January 11, 2021--nearly a month after the
briefing deadline had passed--Plaintiff Alexander Buck submitted a
brief in support of Federman's appointment.

Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes
courts to designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative
class before determining whether to certify the action as a class
action. Courts appointing interim lead class counsel "generally
look to the same factors used in determining the adequacy of class
counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Court must
consider "(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or
investigating potential claims in the action; (ii) counsel's
experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and
the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii) counsel's
knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that
counsel will commit to representing the class." The Court may also
consider any other matter pertinent to class counsel's ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class (Rule
23(g)(1)(B)).

In the case, the Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and (iv) factors do
not favor either application, as all the counsel seeking
appointment are well-credentialled and experienced in class
actions, have served in leadership positions in class actions
involving data breaches, and have committed to assigning the
resources necessary to adequately represent the putative class,
Judge Gardephe notes.

As to Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i), however, Blatt and Martin have the clear
advantage, as they were the first to file a complaint against the
Defendant, Judge Gardephe holds. Blatt and Martin have also devoted
substantial effort to this matter, working to consolidate the
related cases, coordinating with the Plaintiffs' counsel in the
related actions, and managing contacts with Warner Music Group
customers.

Judge Gardephe opines that that Blatt and Martin are not members of
the New York bar does not suggest that their application should be
denied, given their experience and expertise in data breach class
actions.

For all of these reasons, Combs and Kuhn's motion for the
appointment of Blatt and Martin as interim co-lead counsel will be
granted, and Watts's motion for the appointment of Federman as
interim co-lead counsel will be denied.

As to the executive committee, Watts expresses concern that the
proposed executive committee includes "multiple law firms appearing
on the same complaints, thus leading to firms 'doubling up.'" But
Watts does not propose an alternative composition, nor does he
suggest that an executive committee should not be appointed, Judge
Gardephe notes. Instead, Watts argues that "there is no logical
reason why Mr. Federman should not at least be included" in the
executive committee.

Committees of counsel often compete against considerations of
efficiency and economy, however, and can lead to substantially
increased costs and unnecessary duplication of efforts, Judge
Gardephe opines, citing In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litig.,
No. 11 CIV. 3600 WHP, 2012 WL 569195, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14,
2012). At this stage of the litigation, it is not clear that a
leadership structure beyond the two co-lead counsel is necessary to
serve the Plaintiffs' needs, Judge Gardephe holds.

Accordingly, as to the appointment of an executive committee, both
Combs and Kuhn's application and Watts's application will be
denied.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs Combs and Kuhn's motion for the appointment of Gayle
Blatt and Jean Martin as interim co-lead counsel is granted.
Plaintiffs Combs and Kuhn's motion for the appointment of Janine
Pollack (Calcaterra Pollack, LLP), Lori Feldman (George Gesten
McDonald, PLLC), Melissa Emert (Stull, Stull & Brody), M. Anderson
Berry (Arnold Law Firm), Carl Malmstrom (Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC) and Yitzchak Kopel (Bursor & Fisher, P.A.) to
an executive committee is denied. Plaintiff Noah Watts's motion for
the appointment of William B. Federman as interim co-lead counsel
or, alternatively, to an executive committee, is denied.

Pursuant to the Court's November 10, 2020 Order, any consolidated
complaint must be filed by March 19, 2021. The Defendant will
answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint by April
9, 2021. The February 25, 2021 initial pretrial conference is
adjourned sine die. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motions (Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 33, 44, 46).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/cvtunbm4 from Leagle.com.


WARRANTECH CORP: Jett Seeks to Certify Class of ESP Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY JETT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WARRANTECH
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01366-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification
of the following class:

   "All natural persons domiciled in the United States or its
   territories who purchased a Warrantech extended service plan
   and whose requests for service of a product thereunder during
   the term of the manufacturer's warranty were denied."

In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks certification of a
sub-class of Illinois consumers who are members of the class.

The action arises from unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business
practices of the Warrantech with respect to the advertising,
marketing, and sales of warranty plans known as extended service
plans (ESPs). As described in the Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint, the Defendants engaged in unconscionable, unfair, and/or
deceptive acts and practices related to the extended service plans
including but not limited to selling ESPs that purport to provide
immediate product protection to the consumers who purchase them.
Despite the express representations, promises and contractual
obligations to the contrary alleged in the Complaint, the
Defendants uniformly failed to provide purchasers service under the
plans when products fail during the original manufacturer's
warranty.

The Defendants sold ESPs to Plaintiffs and others under the guise
that coverage would begin "on the date of purchase," although its
internal records show that coverage would not in fact begin until a
full year after the date of purchase, during which time requests
for service made by Plaintiffs and members of the Class were
denied.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ck4RqZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: wsweetnam@keoghlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: All Discovery & Proceedings in Moehring Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling in the lawsuit
entitled JONATHAN MOEHRING, et al., individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-2506-JWB (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiffs bring the proposed class action, asserting the
Defendant engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices related to
how the Plaintiffs redeemed their homes after foreclosure. The
parties submitted a joint case-management report on February 19,
2021, in which they discussed their views on whether discovery
should be stayed pending a ruling by the presiding U.S. District
Judge, John W. Broomes, on the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs request that
limited discovery goes forward now, while the Defendant requests
the Court stays discovery pending Judge Broomes' ruling.

For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court stays all
discovery and pretrial proceedings pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion.

As the Plaintiffs note, the Court usually will not stay discovery
merely on the basis of a pending dispositive motion, Magistrate
Judge James P. O'Hara states. However, the Court has recognized a
stay may be appropriate if (1) the case is likely to be finally
concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through
discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive
motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would
be wasteful and burdensome. The decision whether to stay discovery
ultimately rests in the sound discretion of the Court. As a
practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination.

After reviewing the parties' respective positions in their
case-management report, as well as the motion to dismiss and
memorandum in support, the Court concludes this is one of the rare
instances in which staying discovery is justified. Judge O'Hara
notes that the motion to dismiss raises multiple, case-dispositive,
legal issues. The Defendant asserts the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the statute of limitations, and are precluded by res
judicata and collateral estoppel. The Defendant also asserts the
Plaintiffs lack standing and failed to adequately plead the
elements of their claims.

If Judge Broomes agrees with the Defendant on any of these
arguments, the action will be dismissed and any discovery in the
interim would have been wasteful and burdensome, Judge O'Hara
opines. Even if Judge Broomes does not grant the motion to dismiss
in its entirety, his ruling will frame the course of the action and
could narrow the scope of relevant discovery. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs do not contend they need discovery in order to
adequately respond to the dispositive motion. Staying discovery
will allow this action to proceed most efficiently for both the
Court and the parties, Judge O'Hara adds.

The Court, therefore, ruled that:

   1. all pretrial proceedings in the case, including discovery
      and initial disclosures, are stayed until further order of
      the Court; and

   2. if the case remains pending after Judge Broomes decides the
      motion to dismiss, counsel will confer and submit a Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(f) planning report to the undersigned's chambers
      within five business days of the ruling. The Court will set
      a scheduling conference at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uxwr7hzx from Leagle.com.


WILLIAM BLAIR: Jaquez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind People
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01993-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has 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. The Defendant's Website,
www.williamblair.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
failure to accurately describe the contents of graphical images,
(2) failure to properly label title, (3) failure to distinguish one
page from another, (4) presence of multiple broken links, (5)
headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and (6) the
keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the
keyboard focus indicator is visible.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

William Blair & Company, L.L.C. is a financial services company
doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
         MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
         701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
         Asbury Park, NJ 07712
         Telephone: (732) 695-3282
         Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
         E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

WIN-WIN HOTEL: Fails to Accommodate Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIN-WIN HOTEL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LTD. and
DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 21LBCV00122 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 9, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Best Western Los
Angeles Worldport Hotel on its reservation Website at
https://www.bestwestern.com/en_US/book/hotels-in-wilmington/bestwestern-los-angeles-worldport-hotel/propertyCode.05581.html
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.

Win-Win Hotel Investment Partners, Ltd. is an owner and operator of
the Best Western Los Angeles Worldport Hotel located at 1402 W.
Pacific Coast Hwy., Wilmington, California. [BN]

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

ZURICH AMERICAN: Court Reconsiders Injunction Order in Covil Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Covil Corporation By Its
Duly Appointed, Receiver, Peter D. Protopapas, v. Zurich American
Insurance Company; Sentry Casualty Company; United States Fidelity
and Guaranty Company; TIG Insurance Company, As Successor in
Interest to Fairmont Specialty Insurance Company, F/K/A Ranger
Insurance Company; Hartford Accident And Indemnity Company; First
State Insurance Company; Timothy W. Howe, Personal Representative
Of Wayne Erwin Howe; Jeannette Howe; Jerry Crawford; Denver Taylor
And Janice Taylor; and James Coleman Sizemore, Personal
Representative Of James Calvin Sizemore, Case No. 7:18-cv-03291-BHH
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order:

   1. granting Covil's motion for reconsideration of the
      Injunction Order, and withdrawing the injunction as
      improvidently granted; and

   2. denying Covil's motion to reconsider the Court's prior
      ruling denying remand to state court, USF&G's first motion
      to enforce the Injunction Order, and USF&G's second motion
      to enforce the Injunction Order, for a finding of
      contempt, and for sanctions.

This is an insurance coverage action in which the parties dispute
the relative rights and obligations of Covil, its Receiver, and
certain of Covil's insurers under policies issued or allegedly
issued to Covil. Among other issues, the parties dispute the manner
in which it should be determined whether injuries in underlying
asbestos actions are within the products and completed operations
hazard of the policies (rendering them subject to an aggregate
limit), or outside the products and completed operations hazard (in
which case no aggregate limit would apply), as well as the proper
method for allocating injury across multiple policy years.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PRxNPv at no
extra charge.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***