/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210318.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 50

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Parris Sues Over Illegal Discharges of Toxic PFAS
ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Securities Suit Pending
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Smith Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Response to Class Status Bid Due April 22

AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Job After Man Tested Positive for Marijuana
AMAZON.COM INC: Marquez Suit Removed fom Circuit Ct. to S.D. Fla.
ANNABELLE CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Nixed
APACHE CORPORATION: Plymouth Sues Over Inflated Stock Price

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: 40G Solutions Related Suit Concluded
ARBORS AT CALIFORNIA: Class Certification Denial in Peviani Flipped
ASMODEE EDITIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATHENEX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ATMI JUNIOR LAUNDROMAT: Najera Seeks OT Pay, Missing Pay Stubs

BECTON DICKINSON: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Heard Nixed
BIRDSONG CORP: Final Approval of Settlements OK'd in D&M Suit
BIT DIGITAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BMX IMPORTS: Morin Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Benefits for Drivers
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Order

BONZINNI ENTERPRISES: Smith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Files Suit in South Carolina
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
BUFFALO, NY: Homestead Repair Suit Removed to W.D. New York
CALIFORNIA WATER: Hicks Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under Labor Code

CALIFORNIA: Faces Regina Suit Over Refusal to Release Firearm
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Remanded to California Superior Court
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set for April 26
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay CSRs' Overtime Wages, Tipton Says
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending

CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Court Junks Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit
CASCADE CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Kaiser FDCPA Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissal of Merger Related Suit Under Appeal
CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Dockins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Chu Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
CHRISLEX STAFFING: Barthelemy-Noresias Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CINTAS CORPORATION: City of Laurel Files Suit in Nevada
CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
COACHELLA VALLEY: Cal. App. Orders Dismissal of Roberts Class Suit

CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Lane Suit Moved From D. Nevada to N.D. Texas
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Corker Suit Gets Prelim. OK
CRICKET WIRELESS: Thomas Suit Seeks Class Certification
DAISY BRAND: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: July 23 Class Cert. Briefing Extension OK'd

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: July 23 Class Cert. Briefing Extension Sought
DEARBORN LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blackstone Alleges
DEER-BELL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Suit Alleges
DIRECT ENERGY: Amended Management Plan and Scheduling Dates OK'd
DOMINION ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Ruling in Favor of SCANA

DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Suit
EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EDENTON BOATWORKS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGIES: Compton Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Delivery Staff, Key Alleges

FLUIDIGM CORP: Filing of Bid to Toss Saintjermain Suit Due April
FORMULA 1 CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrera Alleges
FUBOTV INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
G&G COMPLETE: White Sues Over Automobile Inspection Failures

GEICO ADVANTAGE: Faces Cannuscio Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
GEICO CASUALTY: Collective Action Cert. Bid Must Filed by Sept. 3
GOLDEN NATURAL: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Tracking Users' Data
HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Certify Class in Handloser Suit Denied

HOME DEPOT: Smart Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
HUMAN POWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Chauhan Purported Class Suit Underway
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu & Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline

JOHN WETZEL: Court Tosses McMillen Bid to Certify Class
KLAUSNER LUMBER: Filing Extension of Bid to Certify Class Sought
KRAMER & FRANK: Grant of Judgment on Pleadings in Coburn Affirmed
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wis. App. Affirms Summary Judgment Against V&J
LILY SILK: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LUCKY BOY: Aguilar Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
MAC AND SONS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MACROGENICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Hill Securities Class Suit Pending
MAUSER USA: California Court Orders Closure of Valenzuela Suit
MDL 2804: Reconsideration Bid on Class Certification Order Tossed

MEDICREDIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Miles' 1st Amended Complaint Denied
MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Aldridge's Claims v. DOC
MULTIPLAN CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 26 Deadline
NABORS DRILLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnett Suit Says
NEWGH LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NOVA HOME: Seeks to Postpone Conditional Cert. Briefing Date
NUTANIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
NUTANIX INC: Parties Agree to Modify Class Certification Deadlines
NUTANIX INC: Stipulation to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
NUTANIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL: Deadline for Class Status Bid Set for April 26
ONESPAN INC: Continues to Defend Almendariz Securities Class Suit
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Avina Suit
PENUMBRA INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline

PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUM PBC: Mathiesen Files Suit in N.D. California
PONZIOS RD: Bid to Certify Final Collective Action in Casco Granted
PREFFERED PHYSICIANS: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Glenn FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Wis.

PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Drake Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Faces Greenfield Suit Over Insurance Premiums
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Tosses Bilog Class Claims w/o Prejudice
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Faces Howard Suit Over 40.84% Stock Price Drop
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ghebrehiwet Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Thompson Securities Suit Goes to C.D. Calif.
RUBIANO INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Mays FLSA Suit Granted in Part
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Denial of Almaraz's Class Suit Bid Endorsed
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 22
SCOTT FRAKES: Gills Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action

SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Second Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Jin
SN SERVICING: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUDER MASONRY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Napoles Suit Says
STATE FARM: Cranfield Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
STRATEGIC BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Menendez Claims

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Battery Drain Problems Cause Class Action Suit
SUNBELT RENTALS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Carrillo Alleges
SUTTER HEALTH: Bid for Summary Judgment in Sidibe Partly Granted
SWEET CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in SISTEL Class Action Still Ongoing

TELEFONICA BRASIL: FENAPAS Class Suit Underway
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Prepaid Minutes Related Class Suits Underway
TEVA PHARMA: Court Supplements Ruling in Securities Class Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Opioid Suit Removed from Com. Pleas Ct. to E.D. Pa.
TEVA PHARMA: Two Classes Certified in Consolidated Securities Suit

TITLEMAX FINANCING: Hyton Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
TOYOTA MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set for Dec. 13
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hagopian Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Faces Head-Egypt Suit Over Insurance Premiums
U.S. BORAX: Jungers Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

UNITED STATES: On Relief Aid to Win Back Wary Working Class
USAA CASUALTY: Faces Cain Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
VIENNA CONVALESCENT: Speth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VON BRIESEN: Parties in Lenzner Suit Agree to File Class Cert. Bid
VOSS & KLEIN: Faces Naidus FDCPA Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida

VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces BCBSM Suit Over Daraprim Drug Monopoly
WEST CHICAGO, IL: Judgment & Dismissal Order in Souza Suit Affirmed
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Nix Fees Charged Related Suit Pending

WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Consolidated New York Class Suit
XEROX CORP: Ribbe Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
XL FLEET: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Class Suit in Post-Pleading Phase

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Three Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Narrows Lawsuit Over User Privacy, 'Zoombombing'

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Parris Sues Over Illegal Discharges of Toxic PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
EARL PARRIS, JR., individually, and on behalf of a Class of perons
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, DAIKIN AMERICA, INC., HUNTSMAN
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, PULCRA CHEMICALS, LLC, MOUNT VERNON MILLS,
INC., Town OF TRION, GEROGIA, RYAN DEJUAN JARRETT, Case No.
4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 23, 2021) asserts claims against
the Defendants regarding ongoing unlawful pollution of surface
waters by illegal discharges of toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) into the Trion WPCP which have contaminated
sludge and biosolids from the Town of Trion Water Pollution Control
Plant (Trion WPCP) disposed of in the Raccoon Creek watershed.

The discharges of sludge and biosolids have contaminated Raccoon
Creek, which is the main source of drinking water for the City of
Summerville, Georgia, with PFAS at toxic levels, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and Members of the Proposed Class are owners and
occupants of property in the City of Summerville, Georgia, and
Chattooga County, Georgia, who are provided domestic water service
by Summerville. Summerville uses a water intake on Raccoon Creek as
its primary water source. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
Members of the Proposed Class have been damaged by the presence of
toxic levels of PFAS in Raccoon Creek and in their water supply.

Defendant Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., has operated a large textile
mill in Trion, Georgia, and has used products from Defendants 3M
Company, Daikin, Huntsman, and Pulcra, containing various PFAS in
its manufacturing process to provide stain resistance and water
resistance to its fabrics.

PFAS Manufacturing Defendants have provided various formulations
containing PFAS to Mount Vernon, and PFAS Manufacturing Defendants
and Defendant Mount Vernon knew or should have known that the PFAS
would be discharged from Mount Vernon's manufacturing facility into
a wastewater treatment facility that would not remove PFAS, and
that PFAS would be released into the environment in sludge and
effluent from the Trion WPCP, the Plaintiff contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Dean, Esq.
          Thomas Causby, Esq.
          MORRIS & DEAN, LLC
          P.O. Box 2005
          Dalton, Ga. 30722
          Telephone: (706) 226-0300
          Facsimile: (706) 229-4363
          E-mail: jeff@morrisanddean.com
                  tom@morrisanddean.com

               - and -

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          James S. Whitlock, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Avenue, Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

ACADIA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Nuplazid Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in the class
action suit entitled, In re ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, remains pending.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and certain of its current and former executive officers.
Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff.

On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption In re Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under
submission.

On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15,
2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to
disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID
threatened initial and continuing Food and Drug Administration
approval, and by failing to disclose that the company engaged in
business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on June 7, 2019. On June 1, 2020, the Court granted the
motion in part and gave lead plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.

On July 16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed the amended complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 28, 2020. Lead plaintiff opposed the motion on September 15,
2020. Defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss was
filed on November 11, 2020.  The hearing on the motion was
rescheduled for February 2021 and ultimately taken off calendar.

ACADIA said, "Accordingly, the court will make a decision based on
the parties' pleadings."

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of AgEagle Aerial
Systems, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ageagle-aerial-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13630&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
Class Period: September 3, 2019 - February 18, 2021

Allegations against UAVS include that: (1) AgEagle did not have a
partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship with
Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's understanding about a
partnership with Amazon, Defendants were actively contributing to
the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about AgEagle's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

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

ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Smith Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK
INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1
through 10, Case No. A-21-829912-B (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty.,
Feb. 23, 2021) seeks class-wide relief for Allstate's failure to
provide and charge a fair and appropriate insurance premium and to
provide premium reduction to its Nevada automobile insurance
policyholders amid the COVID-pandemic.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all Nevada residents who held automobile insurance
policies through Allstate as of March 1, 2020, and who have
thereafter continued to be Allstate automobile policyholders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class, along with
everyone in this country, have faced substantial life changes since
March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced
driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and miles
driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the Plaintiff and
the class members' vehicles. Allstate has not taken the appropriate
action to reduce the Plaintiff and the class members' premiums to
accurately reflect the decreased risk, the suit asserts.

Plaintiff Smith is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a current
automobile insurance policyholder of Allstate.

Allstate is an insurance company licensed to do business in Nevada,
and it sells automobile insurance to Nevada residents and charges
and collects premiums from those residents. Collectively, the
Defendants are all part of the Allstate family of companies,
licensed in Nevada to sell automobile insurance policies within the
State of Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Response to Class Status Bid Due April 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF OLBERG, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00573-JCC
(W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order granting the parties'
stipulated motions for leave to file 18 overlength briefs and to
further extend the case schedule.

Accordingly, the Defendants may file a consolidated motion for
summary judgment not to exceed 50 pages. The Plaintiffs may file a
consolidated response also not to exceed 50 pages. The Defendants
may file a consolidated reply not to exceed 50 pages.

The case schedule is also further continued as follows:

                 Event                        New Deadline

   The Defendants' response to               April 22, 2021
   the Plaintiffs' class
   certification motion and
   expert disclosures:

   The Defendants' consolidated              April 22, 2021
   motion for summary judgment
   and motions to exclude expert
   testimony:

   Depositions of Defendants' class          June 18, 2021
   certification experts

   The Plaintiffs' reply in                  June 18, 2021
   support of their class
   certification motion:

   The Plaintiffs' responses                 June 18, 2021
   to the Defendants' consolidated
   motion for summary judgment
   and motions to exclude expert
   testimony

   The Defendants' replies in                July 16, 2021
   support of their consolidated
   motion for summary judgment
   and motions to exclude expert
   testimony:

The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967. Founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it
was spun off in 1993.

A copy of the Court's minute order dated March 3, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Op1pDI at no extra
charge.[CC]


AMAZON.COM INC: Denies Job After Man Tested Positive for Marijuana
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Goldberg at nydailynews.com reports that a New York City man
is suing Amazon for its policy to weed out new hires - arguing it
was illegal to rescind a job offer after he tested positive for
marijuana on a drug test.

In the lawsuit, Michael Thomas claims he was offered a job at the
retail giant's Staten Island warehouse in November 2020 as a
package sorter -- but had the job offer yanked a month later after
he tested positive for THC.

Filed in Brooklyn Federal Court, the suit claims that Amazon
violated New York City Human Rights Law, which prohibits employers
from drug-testing potential hires for marijuana except in certain
cases, including if employees are going to operate heavy
machinery.

Thomas' job didn't meet the specifications for a weed test -- and
he's not the only ganja aficionado who wants to work for Amazon,
the suit argued.

"A significant portion of the general public now uses some form of
recreational marijuana," wrote lawyers for Thomas in the lawsuit.

"With substantial growth and turnover, the high number of employees
working at its New York City facilities, the prevalence of
marijuana usage and Amazon's uniform policy to screen prospective
employee for marijuana use . . . Amazon has refused to hire more
than 100 individuals because they tested positive for marijuana in
a preemployment drug screen."

Thomas interviewed with Amazon and was then required to take the
drug test, the suit claims. He was offered the job, which pays
$17.25 per hour, the same day -- pending the result of his test.
When he didn't hear from the company for more than a month, he
called them, according to the suit.

He "learned he tested positive for marijuana and Amazon would,
therefore, not be moving forward with hiring him," the lawsuit
says.

Thomas filed the suit as a possible class action. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Marquez Suit Removed fom Circuit Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Andrez Marquez v. Amazon.com,
Inc., Case No. 50-02021-CA-000789-XXXX-MB, was removed from the
15th Judicial Circuit Court to U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach) on Feb. 23, 2021.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:21-cv-80392-DMM to the proceeding.

The case arises from contract-related claims and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

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

Plaintiff Andrez Marquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, including but not limited to, Clarissa Morejon,
Morgan Howard, Sophia Feliciano, James Bromley, And Jeff Barr, are
represented by:

          Anthony John Russo, Jr.
          THE RUSSO LAW FIRM
          301 W Atlantic Ave Ste O2
          Delray Beach, FL 33444-3686
          Telephone: (561) 270-0913
          Facsimile: (954) 767-0656
          E-mail: anthony@therussofirm.com

The Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is represented by:

          Robert Mark Brochin, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Ste 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com

ANNABELLE CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Annabelle Candy Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Annabelle Candy Co.,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02208 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

The Annabelle Candy Company -- https://annabellecandy.com/ -- also
known as Annabelle's, is a Hayward, California, United States,
based candy manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIANA
MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., v. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT (E.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to modify
existing scheduling order:

As the Court previously noted, the Court will not again amend the
case schedule absent a showing of extraordinary good cause.

The Court entered a scheduling order in this case on February 21,
2020. On September 16, 2020, the parties submitted a stipulation to
extend the non-expert discovery cutoff, which the Court denied. On
November 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the
schedule, and the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion.
Accordingly, the schedule was modified once before, extending the
deadline to complete all non-expert discovery from November 30,
2020 to March 1, 2021. The Plaintiffs' first motion to modify the
schedule was related, in part, to the Plaintiffs' access to two
electronic databases used by Defendants: Famous Software and Pet
Tiger.

Anthony Vineyards is located in Bakersfield, California, and is
part of the fruit and tree nut farming industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vtuJtj at no extra charge.[CC]

APACHE CORPORATION: Plymouth Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. APACHE CORPORATION, JOHN J.
CHRISTMANN IV, TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN, STEPHEN J. RINEY, and STEVEN
KEENAN, Case No. 4:21-cv-00575 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 23, 2021) is a
federal securities class action against Apache and certain of its
officers for violations of the federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Apache common stock
from September 7, 2016, through March 13, 2020, inclusive (the
Class Period), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The action alleges that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme
to artificially inflate the Company's stock price in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Apache is an independent energy company that explores for,
develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. Apache currently has exploration and production operations
in three geographic areas: the U.S., Egypt, and offshore U.K. in
the North Sea, and is developing a purported new find in offshore
Suriname. Historically, the U.S. has represented nearly 60% of the
Company's production and 70% of its estimated year-end proved
reserves.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
financial health, including the viability and profitability of a
purported large oil-and-gas resource play in the Permian Basin
called Alpine High. Specifically, Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Apache
intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and
composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High, the suit
adds.

On April 23, 2019, before financial markets opened, Apache
announced that it had begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas
production at Alpine High. In response to this news, Apache's stock
price fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 11% over the next four
trading days, from a close of $37.09 per share on April 22, 2019,
to close at $33.06 per share on April 26, 2019. Then, on October
25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Exploration,
Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the Company. In response to
this announcement, Apache's stock price dropped $1.16, or
approximately 5%, from a close of $23.23 per share on October 24,
2019, to close at $22.07 per share on October 25, 2019. Apache's
stock traded as low as $20.57 per share on October 25, 2019, an
intra-day drop of approximately 11.5%, prompting Bloomberg to issue
a story titled "Apache Executive's Departure Sparks Worst Rout
Since 2016."

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions and
the decline in the Company's share price, Plaintiff and other class
members have suffered significant damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
          Dona Szak, Esq.
          John S. "Jack" Edwards, Jr., Esq.
          AJAMIE LLP
          Pennzoil Place -- South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 860-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
          E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com
                  dszak@ajamie.com
                  jedwards@ajamie.com

               - and -

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  dcheck@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com
                  ksauder@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 997-0860
          Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
          E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: 40G Solutions Related Suit Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
consolidated class action suit related to the company's 40G
solutions has been concluded.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against us and two of our
officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
the company's announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer
than expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand we expect in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas.

The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On
January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018,
which was denied on March 28, 2019.  

On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case.

The court granted the motion on May 16, 2019. The substantive
allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second amended
consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On May 28,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and Levi
& Korsinsky as class counsel.

On July 12, 2019, the company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed their reply brief. On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted, to which the
company filed written objections on November 27, 2019. On December
11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the
company's objections, and on December 16, 2019, the company filed
its reply brief. The court entered an order adopting the Magistrate
Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation over the company's objections
on December 20, 2019.

Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, the company filed a petition for
permission to appeal the class certification order to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition
to our petition on January 13, 2020, and the company filed a reply
brief in further support of the petition for permission to appeal
on January 21, 2020.

On January 23, 2020, the company filed an unopposed motion in the
Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further proceedings to
allow the parties to conduct settlement negotiations. The Fifth
Circuit entered an order granting the motion on January 24, 2020,
and subsequently extended the stay by joint motion of the parties.


On June 2, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter pursuant to a mediator's recommendation. On June
4, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and
Notice of Settlement with the Court, in order to allow the parties
to finalize their settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval with the court no later than August 3, 2020.

On August 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplates—among
other things and contingent upon Court approval of the settlement
and customary terms and conditions—settlement of the action, a
release of all claims made in the action, and dismissal of the
claims made in the action with prejudice.  As consideration for
entering into the settlement, Plaintiffs will receive for
distribution to the members of the class they purport to represent
(in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement) a
payment of $15.5 million funded by AOI's applicable directors' and
officers' insurance policies.

On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed motions with the Court
seeking final approval of the class action settlement and an award
of attorneys' fees to be paid out of the $15.5 million settlement
fund. On November 24, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing at
which it approved the settlement. That same day, the Court entered
its Final Order and Judgment terminating the case.

Additional information regarding the settlement can be obtained by
reviewing the settlement documents publicly filed with the Court in
the matter. On December 7, 2020, following resolution of the
district court case, the Fifth Circuit dismissed, without
prejudice, the company's petition for permission to appeal the
class certification order.

Applied Optoelectronics said, "After taking into account all
currently available information, the advice of our counsel, and the
extent and currently-expected availability of our existing
insurance coverage, we believe that the outcome of this matter will
not have a material adverse effect on our overall financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, and we have not
recorded any accrual with regard to this matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


ARBORS AT CALIFORNIA: Class Certification Denial in Peviani Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLEY PEVIANI, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
ARBORS AT CALIFORNIA OAKS PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. E073950 (Cal. App.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division Two,
reversed the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs motion for
certification of two classes.

In a fifth amended class action complaint, Kelly Peviani, Judy
Rudolph, and Zachary Rudolph, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, sued Arbors at California Oaks and JRK
Residential Group, Inc.  The lawsuit included eight causes of
action: (1) false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17500);
(2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) nuisance;
(4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(5) bad faith retention of security deposits; and (6) three causes
of action for unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17200).

The Defendants owned and operated an apartment complex in Murrieta
known as The Arbors at California Oaks Luxury Apartments.  Peviani
rented an apartment at the property from September 2016 to March
2017.  Judy and Zachary rented an apartment at the property from
February 2014 to May 6, 2017.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants advertise with colorful
brochures and promising language that the Property is a safe,
habitable, and luxurious place to live, with numerous amenities
including a playground, cabanas and lounges, tennis and basketball
courts, a rock climbing wall, gym, and pools and heated spas.  But
the Property is nothing of the kind.  Instead, the Property is
littered with used condoms, drug use, broken security gates,
violence, is devoid of security patrols, and police are called to
the complex on a regular basis.  The pools are dirty, and the
fitness equipment is broken.  The complex is unsafe for tenants,
especially children, and does not deliver on its material
promises.

The Plaintiffs prayed for (1) an order requiring defendants to
remedy the habitability problems; (2) an order enjoining the
Defendants from engaging in deceptive business practices; (3) an
order requiring the Defendants "to engage in a corrective
advertising campaign"; (4) an order enjoining the Defendants "from
withholding security deposits for ordinary wear and tear and
without providing proper documentation"; (5) an order declaring
leases are voidable for the class members; (6) reformation of the
leases; (7) an order enjoining the Defendants from engaging in
unfair business practices; (8) an order requiring the Defendants to
disgorge any unjust enrichment that resulted from their false
advertising; (9) restitution in the amount of $15 million for the
false advertising and habitability issues; (10) damages of $10
million for the withholding of security deposits; (11) pre and
postjudgment interest; (12) punitive damages; (13) attorney's fees;
and (14) costs.

The Plaintiffs moved for certification of two classes.  They
asserted the property included 460 apartments.  The first class
would concern the false advertising and habitability issues (the
advertising and habitability class).  The people in that class
would be all persons who paid rent at the property from March 15,
2013, to the present.

The second class would focus on the security deposit issues (the
security deposit class).  The people in that class would be "all
former residents who paid security deposits at the property
(excluding officers, directors, and employees of the Defendants),
and to whom Defendants did not return more than $125 of the
security deposit within 21 days of the vacation of the apartment
from March 15, 2013 to the present."

The Defendants opposed the motion for class certification.  They
asserted common questions did not predominate in regard to false
advertising.  They contended the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
what common experience supported class certification for the false
advertising claim.

The trial court held a hearing on the motion on July 26, 2019.  The
record does not include a reporter's transcript of the hearing, but
the minutes reflect the court "inquired of of all the counsel re
class similarities/subclasses," and the counsel presented
arguments.

On Oct. 15, 2019, the trial court issued a nine-page ruling denying
the motion for class certification as to all claims.  It concluded
that based on the declarations offered in support of the motion for
class certification, it is not clear that any one condition
affected all residents, or former residents, of the property in the
same way.  It is also not clear that any one condition was
injurious to health, indecent, offensive, or obstructed the free
use of any part of the property or any particular apartment for a
specific period."

The Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by denying their class
certification motion.  They contend the trial court erred in
finding a lack of commonality for the nuisance cause of action.

The Court of Appeals explains that the nuisance claim in the
instant case concerns the condition of the common areas of the
property.  The property is a residential property.  Thus, the
instant case involves the same property (common area) that is used
for the same residential purpose.  That distinguishes the case from
City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, in which
the properties were in different locations and used for different
purposes. Given the factual differences between the two cases, the
Court does not find the commonality analysis of City of San Jose to
be persuasive in the instant case.

Hence, in regard to false advertising, the Court of Appeals opines
that the trial court erred by relying on incorrect legal factors.
For habitability and nuisance, the trial court misconstrued the
causes of action by not recognizing that they are solely focused on
the common areas.  In sum, it concludes the trial court erred by
denying certification of the advertising and habitability class.

As for the security deposit class, the Appellate Court opines that
the trial court fails to consider that it can control the
presentation of evidence (McDaniel v. Superior Court (1976) 55
Cal.App.3d 803, 805), and if there is a point where the evidence is
cumulative on the issue of reasonableness, then the trial court can
halt the introduction of further evidence on that topic.  The
Appellate Court fails to see why, in order to prove the
reasonableness of their deductions, the Defendants would need to go
through every deduction for every moveout.

A detailed analysis such as that might be necessary for some claims
of damages, but it would not be necessary for reasonableness.
Reasonableness involves the decision-making process, the criteria,
and the consistency of the decision-maker, who in the case appears
to be Ellis.  If the criteria are reasonable and the criteria are
consistently applied, then reasonableness is properly proven by
common evidence.  In sum, the Appellate Court concludes that the
trial court erred by concluding there is a lack of commonality.
Additionally, because the trial court's commonality finding was
flawed, its related conclusion pertaining to manageability is
unreliable.

The Plaintiffs brought three causes of action alleging unlawful,
unfair, or fraudulent business practices.  All three causes of
action were brought on behalf of the advertising and habitability
class.

The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court did not provide
additional reasons for denying class certification as it pertained
to the three Business and Professions Code section 17200 causes of
action.  It has concluded that the trial court erred in its reasons
for denying class certification.  Because the trial court's reasons
for denying class certification related to Business and Professions
Code section 17200 causes of action are the same as for the other
causes of action, the Appellate Court concludes the trial court
erred in relation to these three causes of action as well.

Finally, in the appellants' opening brief, the Plaintiffs raise a
variety of issues, such as the class being sufficiently numerous
and the class being ascertainable.  When reviewing an order
pertaining to class certification, the Appellate Court reviews only
the reasons given by the trial court.  It does not address any
unexpressed reasons.

The Appellate Court has reviewed the trial court's reasons for
denying class certification.  The trial court did not address
issues such as whether the putative class was sufficiently numerous
and ascertainable.  Because the trial court did not express an
opinion as to those issues, the Appellate Court cannot express an
opinion as to those issues.  Therefore, it does not address the
issues raised by the Plaintiffs that are outside the scope of the
trial court's expressed reasons.

In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court reversed the trial
court's order is reversed.  The Appellants are awarded their costs
on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/te6ckpv2 from Leagle.com.

The Weston Firm and Gregory S. Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Lester & Cantrell, Mark S. Lester -- mlester@lc-lawyers.com -- and
Colin A. Northcutt -- cnorthcutt@lc-lawyers.com -- for Defendants
and Respondents.


ASMODEE EDITIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asmodee Editions LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Asmodee Editions LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02161 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Asmodee -- https://corporate.asmodee.com/ -- is a games publisher
and a games specialist distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATHENEX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13633&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Class Period: August 7, 2019 - February 26, 2021

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

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

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

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

ATMI JUNIOR LAUNDROMAT: Najera Seeks OT Pay, Missing Pay Stubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adelina Najera, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Atmi Junior Laundromat Inc. and Atmi
Kurtishi, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01309 (S.D. N.Y., February 12,
2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a laundry service, located in
New York, NY under the name "Atmi Junior Laundromat" where Najera
was employed as a laundry attendant. She 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. She also claims to have never
received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Heard Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COREY HEARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 19 C 4158 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca L.
Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied BD's motion to dismiss, and denied without
prejudice BD's motion to strike the class allegations in the
Plaintiff's amended complaint.

Mr. Heard filed the proposed class action against Becton, Dickinson
& Co. ("BD"), the manufacturer of an automated medication
dispensing system that requires users to scan their fingerprints.
Mr. Heard alleges that BD violated and continues to violate several
provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.  The case was filed in state
court, but BD removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and
the Class Action Fairness Act.

One of BD's products, the Pyxis MedStation system, is an automated
medication dispensing system; the system requires that, in order
for hospital workers to obtain medication for distribution to
patients, the workers must submit to a fingerprint scan.  The
purpose of this technology is to improve hospitals' ability to
control access to medication.

Hospital workers first enroll in the Pyxis system by placing a
finger on a "platen," a flat plate on the Pyxis device's
fingerprint scanner, and the device captures an image of the
fingerprint.  The device then extracts unique features in the
fingerprint to create a user template, which is stored both on the
device and in a database.  Once users have enrolled their
fingerprints, the device can verify or identify a user's
fingerprint, depending on the device's configuration.  In a
hospital setting, users can access multiple Pyxis devices within
the hospital because Pyxis software allows the devices to
communicate with one another.  Pyxis devices also share the unique
user templates and data from subsequent fingerprint scans with BD's
servers.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois resident, who works as a respiratory
specialist.  Since 2015, he has worked for five hospitals that use
Pyxis devices.  As a condition of his employment, the Plaintiff was
required to enroll his fingerprint with the devices and to scan his
fingerprint each time he accessed a device.  He re-enrolled with
Pyxis devices each time he began new employment with a hospital.

The Plaintiff alleges not only that the hospitals stored his
fingerprint data, but also that each time he accessed a Pyxis
device, BD collected his fingerprint data and stored it on its
servers.  He alleges that he has never been informed of: (1) the
purposes or length of time for which Defendant has collected,
stored, and/or disseminated his biometric data; (2) whether BD has
a biometric data retention policy; or 3) whether BD will ever
permanently delete his data.  Furthermore, he has never been
presented with or signed a written release allowing BD to collect,
store, or disseminate his biometric data.

The Plaintiff brings three claims against BD on behalf of himself
and the putative class.  Count I alleges a violation of Section
15(a) for "failure to institute, maintain and adhere to a
publicly-available retention schedule."  Count II alleges a
violation of Section 15(b) for "failure to obtain informed written
consent and release before obtaining biometric identifiers or
information."  Finally, Count III alleges a violation of Section
15(d) for "disclosure of biometric identifiers and information
before obtaining consent."  The recipients of this data are
"currently unknown," but include "third parties that host biometric
data in their data center(s)." The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment that BD's conduct violated the BIPA, injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All
users in the State of Illinois who had their fingerprints
collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed
by Defendant during the applicable statutory period."

In an earlier ruling ("Heard I"), the Court dismissed the
Plaintiff's complaint but gave him leave to amend, and the
Plaintiff has done so.  BD again moves to dismiss, and has moved to
strike the class allegations in the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
It argues that the Plaintiff has once again failed to state a claim
under Sections 15(a), 15(b), and 15(d) of the BIPA.  Alternatively,
it contends that the Plaintiff's FAC must be dismissed because of
BIPA's purported health care exemption.  Finally, BD suggests that
the complaint is deficient for failure to plead negligence,
recklessness, or intent.

Judge Pallmeyer begins by addressing the adequacy of the
Plaintiff's allegations before turning to the Defendant's
alternative arguments.

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

In a footnote, the Plaintiff asks that the court sever and remand
his Section 15(a) claim to state court for lack of standing.
Because the Judge concludes that Mr. Heard has alleged a "concrete
and particularized injury" from BD's failure to delete his
biometric data, she denies his request to remand.

As to the sufficiency of his Section 15(a) claim, the Defendant
argues that the FAC is nevertheless insufficient because the
Plaintiff still makes no allegation that BD could freely access
biometric data, that BD exercised any control over the data, or
even how BD received it.

The Judge finds these arguments unpersuasive.  At this stage, she
notes that the Plaintiff need not show in granular detail the
precise means by which users' biometric data travelled from Pyxis
devices to BD's servers (i.e., via ethernet cable or Wi-Fi).  The
Plaintiff's allegation that BD provides support services by
analyzing data collected from Pyxis devices is enough to suggest
that BD exercises some form of control over users' biometric data
and therefore is in possession of the data.

In his Section 15(b) claims, the Plaintiff alleges that BD has not
obtained informed consent from Pyxis users.  BD argues that
Plaintiff's own allegations suggest that it is the hospitals, not
BD, that store users' biometric information on their own systems
and servers.  Alternatively, it argues that Section 15(b) does not
apply to third-party vendors, like BD, when the collection of
biometric data occurs in the context of an employment
relationship.

The Judge concludes that the FAC has sufficiently alleged an active
step by BD to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain Pyxis users'
biometric data.  These allegations suggest that BD itself plays an
active role in collecting or otherwise obtaining users' biometric
information from the Pyxis devices.  The Judge agrees with the
Plaintiff that he is not required to prove the merits of his claims
at the pleading stage.  It is entirely plausible that users'
biometric information is stored on both the hospitals' servers and
BD's servers.

Regarding the Plaintiff's Section 15(a) claim, the Judge holds that
the FAC now sufficiently alleges possession.  The remaining issue
is whether the FAC sufficiently alleges disclosure to third
parties.  She concludes that it does and denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss this claim.  Among other things, she finds that
because BD does not inform users of its Pyxis devices "to whom the
data is disclosed," much less obtain their consent to do so, the
Plaintiff has stated a claim for Section 15(d).

In the alternative, BD urges that the Plaintiff's claims be
dismissed on the basis of a purported "health care exemption" to
the reach of BIPA.  BD locates this "exemption" in the BIPA's
definition of "biometric identifiers," which excludes (1)
"information captured from a patient in a health care setting or
[(2)] information collected, used, or stored for health care
treatment, payment, or operations under the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [(HIPAA)] of 1996."

The Judge concludes that BD's interpretation lacks merit.  She
notes that if the Illinois legislature had intended to exclude
health care workers from BIPA, there was a much more
straightforward means to do so.  The legislature did not include a
provision explicitly stating that BIPA will not be construed to
apply to a health care provider, much less a biometric-device
vendor.  Alternatively, the legislature could have excluded health
care institutions from the definition of private entity, but it did
not.

In short, if HIPAA does not apply to BD, then BD cannot claim
protection from the HIPAA exemption.  Moreover, given that HIPAA
protects patient health information, not medical provider
information, it would be odd for the legislature to exclude
biometric data from BIPA protection that is not even protected
under HIPAA.   If Illinois appellate courts eventually weigh in and
disagree with the Court's interpretation, the Judge will grant the
Defendant leave to raise this argument again.

Alternatively, BD contends that the Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed because he failed to plead negligence, recklessness, or
intent on the part of the Defendant.

The Judge explains that because BIPA was enacted in 2008, over a
decade ago, several district courts have inferred that a defendant
was at least negligent for failing to comply with BIPA today.  Some
courts have gone further, concluding that a defendant's alleged
failure to comply with BIPA permits an inference of recklessness or
intent.  To be sure, discovery might very well undermine the
recklessness or intent allegation, and at a trial, the shoe would
be on the other foot, with the Plaintiff bearing the burden of
proof. For now, though, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has
alleged enough facts to infer that the Defendant's failure to
comply with BIPA was negligent, reckless, or even intentional, and
rejects the Defendant's argument for categorical dismissal of the
Plaintiff's liquidated damages claims.

For these reasons, Judge Pallmeyer denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

Motion to Strike Class Allegations

Having denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Judge turns to
BD's motion to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations.  As
currently defined, the class would include: "All users in the State
of Illinois who had their fingerprints collected, captured,
received, or otherwise obtained or disclosed by Defendant during
the applicable statutory period."

BD has argued that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
superiority and predominance requirements for class actions seeking
damages.  Additionally, it contends that Mr. Heard's involvement in
other BIPA class actions renders him an inadequate class
representative in the case.

The Judge concludes these arguments are premature.  To the extent
that the proposed class is overbroad as currently defined, the
appropriate response is to narrow the class definition rather than
denying class certification entirely at the pleading stage.
Accordingly, she denied the motion to strike class allegations
without prejudice.  BD may raise its Rule 23 arguments again after
discovery.  BD will answer the FAC by April 15, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2d68ycrv from
Leagle.com.


BIRDSONG CORP: Final Approval of Settlements OK'd in D&M Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D&M FARMS, MARK HASTY,
DUSTIN LAND, ROCKY CREEK PEANUT FARMS, LLC, DANIEL HOWELL, and,
LONNIE GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BIRDSONG CORPORATION, GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC, and
OLAM PEANUT SHELLING COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL
(E.D. Va.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of settlements for the Defendants Olam
and Birdsong.

The Plaintiffs, Olam, and Birdsong have agreed to a total
settlement fund of $57,750,000.

On December 2, 2020, the Court certified the following class:

   "All persons or entities in the United States who sold raw,
   harvested runner peanuts to any of the Defendants, their
   subsidiaries or joint-ventures, from January 1, 2014 through
   December 31, 2019."

Specifically excluded from this Class are the Defendants; the
officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in
which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate,
legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant."

Birdsong operates as a peanut processing operation. Olam is part of
the specialty food stores industry.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated March 3,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Njqyz5
at no extra charge.[CC]

BIT DIGITAL: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13630&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
Class Period: December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021

Allegations against BTBT include that: (1) Bit Digital overstated
the extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Immunovant, Inc. f/k/a Health Sciences Acquisitions Corporation
(NASDAQ: HSACW)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/immunovant-inc-f-k-a-health-sciences-acquisitions-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13630&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 2021
Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 1, 2021

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

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

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

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

BMX IMPORTS: Morin Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Benefits for Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOM MORIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMX IMPORTS, L.P. and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV09516 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay separately
and hourly for time spent on rest breaks, loading/unloading time,
and non-driving tasks; failure to provide paid rest periods and pay
missed rest break premiums; failure to provide meal periods and pay
missed meal period premiums; failure to reimburse business
expenses; unlawful deduction from pay; waiting time penalties; and
unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a driver in California
from October 2014 to 2020.

BMX Imports, L.P. is a manufacturer of miscellaneous products with
its business address located in Farmers Branch, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Sam Kim, Esq.
         Yoonis Han, Esq.
         VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
         841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 320-2000
         Facsimile: (424) 221-5010
         E-mail: skim@verumlg.com

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR.,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266-MOC-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Defendant moves the Court to reconsider and rescind
its order granting conditional certification of a company-wide
class of Bojangles shift managers.

The Court granted conditional certification in reliance on
representations in Plaintiff Robert Stafford's amended complaint
and declaration in support of conditional certification.

On February 18, 2021, Bojangles took Plaintiff's deposition. At
that deposition, the Plaintiff admitted that numerous statements
that he made in his filings supporting conditional certification
were false. In its order allowing notice of this lawsuit to be sent
out to nearly 5,000 putative collective action members, the Court
relied on Plaintiff's representations, which the Plaintiff's
deposition revealed to be false.

If the misrepresentations in Plaintiff's filings in support of
conditional certification are excluded, the Court is left with no
evidence suggesting that a class of similarly situated Bojangles
shift managers exist. The Plaintiff's deposition testimony confirms
that no such class exists.

Because the order granting conditional certification is based on
Plaintiff's false statements, the Court may and should reconsider
and rescind it. Reconsidering and rescinding that order is further
necessary to preserve the integrity of the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action process and to enforce the parties' obligations
of candor to the Court, the Defendant contends.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 4, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lfSrVg at no extra
charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., are:

          Brian L. Church, Esq.
          Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
          Brian L. Church, Esq.
          Brendan P. Biffany, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8303
          Facsimile: (704) 373-3903
          E-mail: cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com

BONZINNI ENTERPRISES: Smith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonzinni Enterprises
LLC. The case is styled as Cody Smith, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bonzinni Enterprises LLC doing business as:
Likewise Cannabis of Stillwater, an Oklahoma Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 5:21-cv-00210-D (W.D. Okla., March 12, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Likewise Stillwater Dispensary -- https://likewisecannabis.com/ --
offers a cannabis dispensary experience in Oklahoma, Edmond and
Stillwater.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BRITAX CHILD: Coleman Files Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Britax Child Safety,
Inc. The case is styled as Tiffany Coleman, Keli Swann,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Britax Child Safety, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.,
March 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Britax Child Safety, Inc. -- https://us.britax.com/ -- manufactures
child seats. The Company offers strollers, travel systems, baby
carriers, kick mats, window sheds, back seat mirror, and other
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          217 Lucas Street, Suite G
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: harper@whitfieldbryson.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit in
Tennessee.

In June 2020, the Company and several current and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in
the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies that caused the Company's stock price to be
artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020.

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the result of this
or any other legal proceedings, the Company believes the
allegations in the suit are without merit and does not expect this
matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In October 2020, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
stockholder derivative lawsuit in the federal court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, asserting claims on behalf of the Company
against certain current and former officers and directors for
alleged breaches of duties owed to the Company. The complaint
refers to the securities lawsuit described above and incorporates
substantively similar allegations.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is an operator of senior living
communities throughout the United States. The Company is committed
to providing senior living solutions primarily within properties
that are designed, purpose-built, and operated to provide quality
service, care, and living accommodations for residents. The Company
operates and manages independent living, assisted living, memory
care, and continuing care retirement communities. The Company also
offers a range of home health, hospice, and outpatient therapy
services to residents of many of its communities and to
seniors living outside of its communities. The Company is based in
Brentwood, Tennessee.

BUFFALO, NY: Homestead Repair Suit Removed to W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Homestead Repair & Renovation, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City
of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown, Case No. 810827/2021 was removed from
the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York on March 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00388 to the
proceeding.

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

Buffalo -- http://www.buffalony.gov/-- is the second-largest city
in the U.S. state of New York and the largest city in Western New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David M. Lee, Esq.
          1100 City Hall
          65 Niagara Square
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (716) 851-9691
          Fax: (716) 851-4105
          Email: dlee@city-buffalo.com


CALIFORNIA WATER: Hicks Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN HICKS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. (Calif. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 23, 2021) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period Premiums, unpaid Rest
Period Premiums, and unpaid minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants, jointly and severally, employed the Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from May 2018 to November 2018, in
the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

California Water Service is an American public utility company
providing drinking water and wastewater services to a number of
regions within the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

CALIFORNIA: Faces Regina Suit Over Refusal to Release Firearm
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER PAUL REGINA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, XAVIER
BECERRA, DOE 1, in his/her capacity as Attorney General of the
State of California, and DOES 2 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21STCV09546 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Plaintiff's Second Amendment Rights by refusing to issue a
letter required under the California Penal Code for Turner's
Outdoorsman to release a firearm to the Plaintiff and failing to
state or establish the legal basis of the decision.

The State of California is a sovereign state in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         William A. Daniels, Esq.
         DANIELS LAW
         15021 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 833
         Encino, CA 91436-2442
         Telephone: (818) 433-8003

               - and –

         Robert M. Ross, Esq.
         KLASS, HELMAN & ROSS
         16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1145
         Encino, CA 91436-2424
         Telephone: (818) 788-7007

CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Remanded to California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California remanded the case, IVAN ESCOBAR, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02501-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of
California, in and for the County of San Joaquin.

Plaintiff Escobar brought the action against Capstone and Does 1
through 50, asserting violations of California Labor Code Section
226(a) and California Labor Code Section 2698, and purporting to
sue on behalf of himself and "all current and former employees of
Capstone in the state of California who were paid "Premium" wages
at any time between May 13, 2019, through the present."

The Plaintiff was hired by Capstone on April 13, 2020 as a Material
Handler, and worked as an hourly non-exempt employee.  Capstone is
a Delaware limited liability company that provides supply chain
management services, including transportation, warehousing, and
fulfillment services, to businesses throughout the United States
and California.

The Plaintiff contends that Capstone uniformly administered a
corporate policy and practice of failing to provide proper payroll
records in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.  He
states that when "premium" wages were paid, the wage statements
failed to identify the correct rates of pay and/or hours worked.
He seeks penalties on behalf of all aggrieved hourly employees who
were paid "premium" wages from May 13, 2019 through the present for
Capstone's violations of California Labor Code Section 226(a).

Capstone removed the case to the Court asserting diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.  However, after reviewing his arbitration
agreement with the Defendant, which would effectively bar any class
claims, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which
eliminated the class action claims and solely asserts claims under
the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Section
2968, et seq.

Before the Court now is the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.  He
argues that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332 because after the dismissal of his class claims the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of
interests and costs.  The amount in controversy includes "all
relief claimed at the time of removal to which the Plaintiff would
be entitled if he prevails."  In assessing the amount in
controversy, the Court may consider allegations in the complaint
and in the notice of removal, as well as summary-judgment type
evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.

Judge Shubb holds that comity weighs in favor of declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining
state law claim because the state court is competent to hear such
claims and may have a better understanding of the relevant state
law.  As for judicial economy, the action was removed to the Court
only a little over two months ago and is still in its early stages.
Judicial economy does not weigh in favor of exercising
supplemental jurisdiction.

Lastly, the Judge notes that convenience and fairness do not weigh
in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.  The federal and
state fora are equally convenient for the parties.  There is no
reason to doubt that the state court will provide an equally fair
adjudication of the issues.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands the Plaintiff's
remaining state law claim.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Superior Court of
California, in and for the County of San Joaquin.  The Clerk of the
Court will forward a copy of the Order to the Clerk of the Superior
Court of California, in and for the County of San Joaquin.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bw3h5n2s from Leagle.com.


CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set for April 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Tarry, Chris
Gagliastre, and Olga Zayneeva, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00800-JD On
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. Captain
George's of South Carolina, LP; Captain George's of South Carolina,
Inc.; Pitsilides Management, LLC; George Pitsilides; and Sharon
Pitsilides; Case No. 4:19-cv-00800-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
entered Joseph Dawson III an order granting amendments to the
Conference and Scheduling Order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the Defendants'
      Motion to Dismiss is set for March 24, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
      certification is set for April 26, 2021.

The Court, having reviewed the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order, finds the motion to be well taken and granted for
good cause.

Captain Georges was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks.

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

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay CSRs' Overtime Wages, Tipton Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrice Tipton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00417-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 23, 2021) is a collective
and class action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons employed by the Defendant Carrington Mortgage
arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a financial services company that handles
single-family residential real estate transactions, including
investment in U.S. real estate and mortgage markets, loan
origination and servicing, asset management and property
preservation, real estate sales and rental, and title and escrow
services.

The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective and class
were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid, non-exempt customer
service representatives ("CSRs"), and were responsible for handling
inbound telephone calls from the Defendant's clients and
customers.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay CSRs for their time spent
starting up their computers, logging into required systems and
applications, and reviewing work-related e-mails and other
information, before their shifts and upon returning from their meal
breaks, as well as time spent closing/shutting down their computer
programs and systems after the end of their scheduled shifts,
including time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Carrington provides mortgage lending services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER
          445 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345, Ext. 126
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com

CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the putative class action suit entitled,
Donald Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On August 9, 2019, Donald Hook filed a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, Donald Hook, et al., v. Casa Systems, Inc. et
al., Index No. 654548/2019, against the same defendants named in
the Shen and Baig matters.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its initial
public offering (IPO) and generally alleges that (i) each of the
defendants violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act because documents related to the company's IPO
including its registration statement and prospectus were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and Summit
Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and in
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains substantially similar allegations as the initial
complaint, described above, and asserts claims for violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On January 21, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remains pending.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., is still pending.

On August 13, 2019, Panther Partners, Inc. filed a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County, Panther Partners, Inc., et al., v.
Jerry Guo et al., Index No 654585/2019, against the company,
certain of its current and former executive officers and directors,
and the underwriters from the company's April 30, 2018 follow-on
offering of common stock, which the company refers to as its
"Follow-on Offering."

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
our common stock in our Follow-on Offering and generally alleges
that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham Pucheril,
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of the
defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, because
documents related to the company's Follow-on Offering, including
its registration statement and prospectus, were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted as
controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of Section
15 of the Securities Act.

On November 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains substantially similar allegations and asserts the
same claims as the initial complaint, described above. Plaintiff
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.


On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.

CASA SYSTEMS: Court Junks Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et
al. suit, has been granted.

On May 29, 2019, John Shen filed a putative shareholder class
action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et al., Civil Action No.
1977CV00787, against the company; certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors; Summit Partners, the company's
largest investor; and the underwriters from the company's December
15, 2017, initial public offering, or IPO.

On July 3, 2019, Mirza R. Baig filed a similar putative shareholder
class action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, Mirza R. Baig v. Casa Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
1977CV00961, against the same defendants.

Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion filed on July 26, 2019, and accepted
September 3, 2019, the two matters were consolidated and
transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Suffolk County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et
al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03203-BLS2 and Mirza R. Baig v. Casa
Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03204-BLS2.

The complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of our common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO. The complaints
generally alleged that (i) each of the defendants violated Section
11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, because documents related to the
IPO, including our registration statement and prospectus were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and
Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and
in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder
class action complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of
our common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which contained
substantially similar allegations and asserted the same claims as
the two initial complaints, described above. Plaintiffs sought,
among other things compensatory damages, costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On January 14, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice. On January 11, 2021, the court
granted the motions to dismiss.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASCADE CAPITAL: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Kaiser FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL KAISER; MARGARET J. LOEWEN, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC; GORDON, AYLWORTH & TAMI P.C.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-35151 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's
dismissal of the case.

Plaintiff Kaiser purchased a car under a retail installment sale
contract. He defaulted on his payments, and his car was repossessed
and sold.  The proceeds from the sale failed to cover the
outstanding balance under the contract, and Kaiser did not pay the
remaining amount due.  Years later, the creditor, Defendant
Cascade, sought to collect that deficiency balance.  It hired a law
firm, Defendant Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. ("GAT"), to represent
it.  GAT sent Kaiser a letter that stated the firm "had been
retained with the authority to file a lawsuit" against him and
demanded payment of the outstanding debt. Kaiser failed to pay, and
the Defendants (collectively, "Cascade") sued him in Oregon state
court.

The collection attempts -- both the letter and the lawsuit --
occurred between four and six years after Kaiser's default.  Kaiser
responded to Cascade's state court lawsuit by arguing that the debt
was time barred under Oregon's four-year statute of limitations for
sale-of-goods contract claims, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 72.7250.
Cascade countered that Oregon's six-year statute of limitations for
other contract claims, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 12.080, applied
instead.  The state court ruled for Kaiser.

Kaiser then filed the putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon.  He alleged that Cascade violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by threatening
litigation over time-barred debt in its collection letter and by
filing a lawsuit to collect time-barred debt.  The district court
dismissed for failure to state a claim, reasoning in part that
Cascade did not violate the FDCPA because the state statute of
limitations had been unclear when Cascade attempted to collect the
debt.

Kaiser timely appealed.

The FDCPA prohibits debt collection practices that are misleading,
unfair, or unconscionable.  Those prohibited practices include
filing or threatening to file a lawsuit to collect debts that were
defaulted on so long ago that a suit would be outside the
applicable statute of limitations.  The parties ask the Court to
decide whether the FDCPA's prohibitions regarding such "time-barred
debts" apply even if it was unclear at the time a debt collector
sued or threatened suit whether a lawsuit was time barred under
state law.

The Ninth Circuit holds that they do.  It opines that the FDCPA
takes a strict liability approach to prohibiting misleading and
unfair debt collection practices, so a plaintiff need not plead or
prove that a debt collector knew or should have known that the
lawsuit was time barred to demonstrate that the debt collector
engaged in prohibited conduct.  Because the district court held the
opposite, the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands for further
proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit addresses the legality of Cascade's conduct under
the FDCPA given that the debt was time barred.  It joins its sister
circuits in holding that attempts to collect on time-barred debt
through a lawsuit or threat of suit violates the FDCPA.  Whether
Cascade may have been unsure of the legal status of the debt under
Oregon state law does not affect the conclusion, it affects
Cascade's ability to assert a bona fide error defense to
liability.

These principles dictate that Kaiser's operative Complaint stated a
claim for relief under the FDCPA.  Kaiser alleged that Cascade
filed litigation to collect on a time-barred debt, which supports a
claim for a violation of both the FDCPA's prohibition on misleading
debt collection practices and its prohibition on unfair debt
collection practices.

Evaluating the language in Cascade's collection letter, the
Appellate Court also concludes that Kaiser has also stated a claim
for relief by alleging that the letter threatened to sue on the
time-barred debt, and thereby made a false or misleading statement
in violation of Section 1692e.  The collection letter Kaiser
received does not explicitly threaten to sue on the debt.
Nevertheless, a threat need not be express: It can be implied when
interpreting a letter "as a whole."  Cascade's conduct therefore
was misleading under Section 1692e of the FDCPA.

The Circuit Court emphasizes, however, Cascade may nonetheless be
able to avoid liability through the FDCPA's affirmative defense for
bona fide errors.  To successfully invoke the defense, a debt
collector must "show by a preponderance of evidence that the
violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error
notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to
avoid any such error."  As a matter of first impression, the Ninth
Circuit holds that a mistake about the time-barred status of a debt
under state law could qualify as a bona fide error within the
meaning of the FDCPA.  It leaves it to the district court to
consider in the first instance whether a bona fide error defense,
if raised on remand, could succeed in the case.

Because it concludes that Kaiser has stated a claim for relief
under the FDCPA, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's
dismissal of the action.  On remand, Cascade may attempt to invoke
the bona fide error defense.  The Court expresses no opinion on its
likelihood of success on such a defense.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/j8wjzpjw from Leagle.com.

Mark G. Passannante (argued) -- Markpassannante@msn.com -- Broer &
Passannante PS, in Portland, Oregon; Bret Knewtson --
bknewtson@yahoo.com -- in Hillsboro, Oregon; for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kelly F. Huedepohl (argued) -- khuedepohl@keatingjones.com --
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, in Portland, Oregon, for
Defendants-Appellees.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissal of Merger Related Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments
in September 2020, and a ruling is expected in late 2020 or early
2021.

On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren Corporation for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the
Merger Date, Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy.

With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger.

In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. In
October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint.

In December 2018, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuits. In September 2019, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments in September 2020, and a ruling is expected in early
2021.

The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.

CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.


CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Dockins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheema Freightlines,
LLC. The case is styled as David Dockins, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney
general v. Cheema Freightlines, LLC, a California limited liability
company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002184 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., March 12, 2021).

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

Cheema Freightlines, LLC -- https://cheemafreightlines.com/ --
operates as a trucking company. The Company offers dry truckload,
high cube, store delivery, and logistic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          1110 Franklin St Ste 6
          Oakland, CA 94607-6528
          Phone: (415) 779-2888
          Fax: (415) 738-7873
          Email: larry@ysleelaw.com


CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Chu Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MEI KUM CHU, SAU KING CHUNG, and QUN XIANG LING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL HOME ATTENDANT PROGRAM, INC.,
Case No. 651947/2016, 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 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02115 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law and the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act by
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members the required
minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours premium.

Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc. is a
non-profit organization that provides home care services based in
New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Kenneth Kirschner, Esq.
         David Baron, Esq.
         HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
         390 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 918-3000
         Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
         E-mail: kenneth.kirschner@hoganlovells.com
                 david.baron@hoganlovells.com

CHRISLEX STAFFING: Barthelemy-Noresias Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chrislex Staffing
LTD. The case is styled as Gabriela Barthelemy-Noresias,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by Chrislex Staffing LTD, and/or any other
related entities v. Chrislex Staffing LTD D/B/A J&K Healthcare
Services, Case No. 651660/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty, March
12, 2021).

Chrislex Staffing Ltd. -- https://jkhealthcare.com/ -- provides
health care services. The Company offers direct medical care to an
individual such as medication management, wound care, feeding, and
other assessments.[BN]


CINTAS CORPORATION: City of Laurel Files Suit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cintas Corporation.
The case is styled as City of Laurel, Mississippi, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Cintas Corporation,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00124-LRH-CLB (D. Nev., March 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Cintas Corporation -- https://www.cintas.com/ -- is an American
company with headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, that provides
specialized services to businesses, primarily in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Korey Nelson, Esq.
          Patrick D. Murphree, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 799-2845
          Email: knelson@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Will Thompson, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Ste 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: (469) 904-4550
          Fax: (469) 444-5002

               - and -

          Patrick R. Millsap, Esq.
          Fred McClure Wallace, Esq.
          WALLACE & MILLSAP LLC
          510 W Plumb Lane
          Reno, NV 89509
          Phone: (775) 683-9599
          Fax: (775) 683-9597
          Email: patrick@wallacemillsap.com
                 mcclure@wallacemillsap.com


CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit https://neighborwebsj.com/
[GN]

COACHELLA VALLEY: Cal. App. Orders Dismissal of Roberts Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT et al., Petitioners v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; RANDALL C.
ROBERTS, Real Party in Interest, Case No. E074010 (Cal. App.), the
Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division
Two, issues an Opinion granting Coachella Valley Water District's
petition for writ of mandate; and directing the trial court to
sustain the demurrer and dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

In the writ proceeding, the Court of Appeals must answer a single
question: Whether the validation statutes (Code Civ. Proc.,
Sections 860-870.5) apply to a county water district's ad valorem
property tax such that a challenge to the tax must be brought
within the 60-day statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure
section 860.

The tax at issue in the case relates to the State Water Project (or
SWP)--California's vast system of storage and conveyance facilities
designed to provide water to its millions of residents and farmers.
In 2013, the water district passed a resolution adopting a
two-cent increase to the rate of its ad valorem property tax, which
the water district levies annually to satisfy its contractual
financial obligations to the SWP (the SWP tax).

In 2018, Roberts filed a lawsuit against the water district and the
County of Riverside, seeking to invalidate the tax under the
Burns-Porter Act of 1960 (Wat. Code, Sections 12930-12944) and the
California Constitution (Propositions 13, 26, and 218) and to
obtain a refund.  The water district demurred, arguing the entire
action was time-barred because Roberts was required under the
validation statutes to present his claims in a "reverse validation
action" no later than 60 days after the water district adopts the
tax, which it does annually by resolution.  The trial court
concluded the validation statutes do not apply to the SWP tax and
overruled the demurrer.

The water district now seeks a writ of mandate ordering the trial
court to reverse its decision and sustain the demurrer.  It argues
the validation statutes apply to the SWP tax by operation of the
County Water District Law (Wat. Code, Section 30000 et seq.), which
makes the validation statutes applicable to any action to determine
the validity of a county water district's "assessment" (id.,
Section 30066) and defines a property tax as an "assessment" (id.,
Section 31702.3).

Necessity of Writ Relief

The Court of Appeals opines that the circumstances of the case
support both mandatory and discretionary writ relief.  Writ review
is necessary because the trial court improperly overruled the
demurrer based on a purely legal error, a misinterpretation of the
relevant validation statutes.  But even if that weren't the case,
the Court of Appeals would nevertheless exercise its discretion to
review the court's ruling because it involves an issue of public
importance that requires immediate resolution.

It explains that in the case, just as in San Bernardino Associated
Governments v. Superior Court (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1113,
the underlying lawsuit challenges a local tax measure intended to
raise funds to pay for matters "of considerable and obvious benefit
to the public."  In that case, revenues from the challenged tax
measure were earmarked to improve roadways and access to public
transportation.

The tax at issue in the instant case levies funds to satisfy the
water district's financial obligations to DWR, thereby ensuring its
maximum annual SWP water entitlement.  And, as the State Water
Contractors point out in their amicus brief, the payments SWP
contractors make under Article 34 of their water supply contracts
ensure DWR can continue to operate the SWP and pay its debt to the
bondholders.  That assurance, in turn, makes low-cost financing
available to the SWP contractors.  The SWP is a vital means of
water supply, delivery, and conservation.  Any litigation with the
potential to impair its funding undoubtedly raises an issue of
public importance.

The Validation Statutes Apply to the SWP Tax

Determining whether the validation statutes apply to a particular
agency action is an exercise in cross-referencing.  This is because
the validation statutes do not specify the matters to which they
apply; rather, their procedures apply to "any matter which under
any other law is authorized to be determined pursuant to this
chapter.  Thus, the Court of Appeals looks to other statutes to
determine the scope of public agency actions that are subject to
validation under the validation statutes.

There's no shortage of cases analyzing whether the validation
statutes apply to particular agency actions.  But the specific
question the Court faces in the case is an issue of first
impression.  No California court has been asked to determine
whether the validation statutes apply to a local water district's
annual property tax.  That's not to say the answer can't readily be
found in its statutory law.  The water district argues that two
provisions of the County Water District Law make clear the
validation statutes apply to the tax at issue here: Water Code
sections 30066 and 31702.3.

The Court of Appeals agrees.  By their plain terms, sections 30066
and 31702.3 bring a local water district's act of setting a
property tax, like the one at issue, within the scope of the
validation statutes.  Roberts argues this isn't so because the word
"tax" does not appear in section 30066.  Such a narrow focus
ignores the County Water District Law's overarching tax scheme and
the obvious interplay of sections 30066 and 31702.3.  Section 30066
makes the validation procedures applicable to any county water
district "assessment," and section 31702.3 defines what an
assessment is in this context--setting a tax rate based on the
value of property within the district. The tax at issue here is
clearly such an "assessment."  The water district sets the tax
following the procedures described above, and the tax is based off
of the values of property within the district.

Having concluded the validation statutes apply to the SWP tax, the
Court of Appeals now considers whether Roberts' claims "could have"
been brought in validation. If that answer is yes, then he waived
the claims because when validation is permitted, it's the exclusive
means to seek judicial review of government action.

The Court of Appeals opines that it is undisputed that many of
Roberts' allegations challenge the validity of the tax itself.  The
complaint seeks "to stop the water district's continued practice of
imposing and collecting improper charges under the guise of
property taxes purportedly authorized by the 1960 Burns-Porter
Act."  The complaint alleges the tax violates both statutory and
constitutional law and seeks a refund and a writ of mandate
vacating "all decisions, acts, ordinances and/or resolutions
unlawfully imposing, authorizing, extending, increasing, diverting
or transferring the SWP Taxes."

These claims are undeniably aimed at the validity of the tax and
the water district's ability to impose it, and as such they are
governed by the validation statutes' 60-day limitations period.
The case does not speak to the question of which statute of
limitations applies to the taxpayer claim in such circumstances.

Similarly, Robert's taxpayer claim is based on his allegation that
the SWP tax (or at least the portion of the tax purportedly used to
fund groundwater replenishment) is invalid.  Under the relevant
statutory framework, the Court of Appeals holds taht Roberts'
spending allegations are inseparable from his allegations that the
tax is invalid: The water district is statutorily required to
disclose the amount of money it needs to raise through property
taxes, as well as the source of the debt or expense, months before
it adopts a resolution to levy the tax.  Because Roberts' taxpayer
waste claim alleges the SWP tax was imposed to raise funds for (at
least partially) improper purposes, the claim is "inextricably
intertwined with" the validity of the tax and is therefore governed
by the statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section
860.

The validation statutes do not provide a similar "good cause"
exception to the statute of limitations. And, even if they did,
Ontario's reason for finding good cause is absent in the case.  The
relevant Water Code provisions are clear: A county water district
makes an "assessment" when it fixes a property tax rate for any
given year, and such assessments are subject to validation.   In
view of its conclusion that Roberts' complaint is barred by the
60-day statute of limitations applicable to validation proceedings,
the COurt of Appeals finds it unnecessary to address the water
district's additional claims of trial court error.  It also
expresses no opinion as to the merits of the reverse validation
actions presently before the trial court.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals grants the petition
and directs the trial court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  Roberts will bear costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6ytpb98e from Leagle.com.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Michael G. Colantuono --
mcolantuono@chwlaw.us -- Pamela K. Graham -- pgraham@chwlaw.us --
Liliane M. Wyckoff for Petitioners.

Costell & Adelson Law Corporation, Jeffrey Lee Costell --
jlcostell@costell-law.com -- Joshua S. Stambaugh --
jstambaugh@costell-law.com -- Sara M. McDuffie --
smcduffie@costell-law.com -- and Timothy J. Burke --
tburke@eckertseamans.com -- for Real Party in Interest.


CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Lane Suit Moved From D. Nevada to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KENNETH LANE, LUIS MARTINEZ, THOMAS DURLIAT,
BENITA LUKE, DAVID KENNEY, ADINA LAWSON, ALLEN FORD, WILLIAM
DOUBEK, MARY KAY DOUBEK, EDWIN P. CARTER AND MARY R. CARTER 1998
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, MICHI SATO, PHILIP STARK, STARKBAUMGARTNER
TRUST, PATRICK AMORIELLO, LOUANN SPIEGEL, JODIE BAEDEKER, EBERLE
FAMILY TRUST, REN BEVELL, KAREN MILES, GARY MUSACCO, ROSALYN
MUSACCO, OLIPHANT FAMILY CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST 11-11-14,
STEPHEN RAGSDALE, LESLIE REED, CHET REILLY, WILLIAM SPAAK, ROBERT
SPAAK, WHALE PLANET MEDIA INC. DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN, HALLIE
ALDRIDGE, NORMAN CHRISTIANSON, ELLEN CHRISTIANSON, MARGARET COWENS,
JOHN DANCASTER, DAVID GREENFIELD, LAURIE GREENFIELD, RICHARD GUIRY,
LYNN CORWINHERNANDEZ, KEITH JAROSLOW, LISA JAROSLOW, DEATRA LANE,
JILL MCGOVERN, GARNETT S. WILLIAMS TRUST, LOWELL ORREN, JED
FIREBAUGH, KAREN WILEY, BARBARA CARRILLO, LINDA MACTAGGART, DENNIS
BLOUGH, CAROLYN DEMERY, ROBERT AND KAREN ZEITZER TRUST, GREGORY
WEISS, STEVEN BLAUVELT, GAY SATO, TURNER FAMILY CHARITABLE
REMAINDER TRUST, TURNER PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ECONOMICS AND
POLITICS INC. RETIREMENT 401K PLAN, JAMES F. TRICE REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST 1 AND 2, THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL HICKEY, CHARLES ANDERSON, JOHN
ANKER, KATHY ANKER, BARBARA OGILVIE, KAREN HUNT, LARRY LYCETT,
HELGA BAKER, JAMES SLATER, MICHAEL C. JACKSON, INGRID JACKSON,
ROGER MACLEOD, DEBORAH KIRBY, BRIAN CRAVEN, MICHAEL RICCATONE,
JULIE RICCATONE, BLACK HAWK FUNDING, INC., W. DAVID BLACKBURN,
KARLENE BLACKBURN, LAWSON FAMILY BYPASS TRUST, PAMELA CHERRY, JANET
CHEEK, and DOUGLAS CHEEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, CONESTOGA
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, CONESTOGA TRUST SERVICES, LLC, L.L. BRADFORD
AND COMPANY, LLC, PROVIDENT TRUST GROUP, LLC, STRATEGIX SOLUTIONS,
LTD., MICHAEL MCDERMOTT, and JAMES SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01716, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on March 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00568-N to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged civil conspiracy,
common law fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary
duty, and federal securities fraud by inducing people, including
the Plaintiffs, to purchase Conestoga life settlement contracts on
the false pretense that the investments were safe and secure
retirement investments.

Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC is a limited liability company
with a principal place of business located at 644 Avenue Fernandez
Juncos, Suite 301, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Conestoga International, LLC is a limited liability company located
at 644 Avenue Fernandez Juncos, Suite 301, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Conestoga Trust Services, LLC is a limited liability company
located at 901 S. Mopac Expressway, Barton Oaks Plaza, Building 5,
Suite 230, Austin, Texas.

L.L. Bradford and Company, LLC is a limited liability company
located at 8880 W. Sunset Road, Suite 190, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Provident Trust Group, LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 8880 W. Sunset Road, Suite 250, Las
Vegas, Nevada.

Strategix Solutions, Ltd. is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Nevada.

James Settlement Services, LLC is a limited liability company, with
its principal place of business in Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Adam Sanderson, Esq.
         Brett S. Rosenthal, Esq.
         REESE MARKETOS LLP
         750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600
         Dallas, TX 75201-3201
         Telephone: (214) 382-9810
         Facsimile: (214) 501-0731
         E-mail: adam.sanderson@rm-firm.com
                 brett.rosenthal@rm-firm.com

                - and –

         Gregory H. King, Esq.
         Matthew L. Durham, Esq.
         KING & DURHAM PLLC
         6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 220
         Las Vegas, NV 89118
         Telephone: (702) 833-1100
         Facsimile: (702) 833-1107
         E-mail: gking@kingdurham.com
                 mdurham@kingdurham.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Corker Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Three Class Action Settlements.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Judge finds that the
proposed Settlement Class, composed of all persons and entities who
farmed Kona coffee in the Kona District and then sold their coffee
from Feb. 27, 2015 to the present, likely meets the requirements
for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
He also finds, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(i), that the
proposed Settlement Agreements are likely fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  Additionally, the proposed allocation plan treats the
class members equitably in proportion to their sales to provide
Class Members with adequate relief.  Based on these factors, the
Judge concludes that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the
Settlement Agreements meet the criteria for preliminary settlement
approval and are deemed fair, reasonable, and adequate, such that
notice to the Settlement Class is appropriate.

Judge Lasnik appoints Paul Richard Brown and Nathan Paine, of Karr
Tuttle Campbell, and Jason Lichtman, Daniel Seltz, and Andrew
Kaufman, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as the
Settlement Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)2 and 23(c)(2)(B), he approves,
as to form and content: of the proposed Notice.  The Notice will be
sent via First Class U.S. Mail and email to all members for whom
address information is available, and posted on the Settlement
Website, www.KonaCoffeeSettlement.com.  He also approves as to form
and content, the proposed Notice and Publication Notice, which will
be published in the West Hawaii Daily.

The Judge appoints JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator.

He directs the following:

      a. The mailing and emailing of the Settlement Class notice by
First Class U.S. Mail and publication in the West Hawaii Today,
will begin within 21 days of the entry of the Order.

      b. No later than 21 days after entry of the Order, the
Settlement Administrator will create and maintain a Settlement
Website until at least 30 days after the effective date of the
Settlement Agreements.

      c. The Settlement Administrator will establish an email
account and P.O. Box to which Settlement Class Members may submit
questions regarding the Settlement Agreements.  The Settlement
Administrator will monitor the email account and P.O. Box and
respond promptly to administrative inquiries from Settlement Class
Members and direct new substantive inquiries to the Settlement
Class Counsel.

      d. No later than 21 days after entry of the Order, the
Settlement Administrator will establish a toll-free telephone
number that the Settlement Class Members can call to receive
additional information about the Settlement Agreements.  The
toll-free number will be operational until at least the effective
date of the Settlement Agreements.

All costs associated with implementing Notice, including fees and
costs of the Settlement Administrator, will be paid out of the
Settlement Funds.

No later than 63 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement
Class Counsel will file its application for attorneys' fees and the
Plaintiffs' request for service awards.  The motions will be noted
on the Court's calendar for the Friday before the Final Approval
Hearing.

No later than 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing, the
Settlement Administrator will file an affidavit with the Court
confirming its implementation of Notice in accordance with this
Order.

Any Settlement Class Member may comment on, or object to, the
Settlement Agreements, the Settlement Class Counsel's application
for attorneys' fees and costs, and/or the request for the
Plaintiffs' service awards.

The following chart summarizes the dates and deadlines set by the
Order:

      a. Notice of Settlement to be Mailed and emailed to
Settlement Class Members, and published in the West Hawaii Today --
March 30, 2021

      b. Creation and Maintenance of March 30, 2021 Settlement
Website Creation and Maintenance of Toll-Free -- March 30, 2021.

      c. Number Deadline for the Settlement Class Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and the Plaintiffs' requests for
service awards -- May 11, 2021

      d. Settlement Administrator affidavit of compliance with
notice requirements -- June 4, 2021

      e. Deadline to have postmarked and/or filed a written
objection to the Settlements or request for an exclusion -- May 25,
2021

      f. Final Approval Hearing -- June 18, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/thdezs4y from Leagle.com.


CRICKET WIRELESS: Thomas Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE THOMAS, JERMAINE
MILLER, JAMIE POSTPICHAL, RONALD ELLISON, SARAH WATERS, MAISHIA
JOHNSON, and USULA FREITAS, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-07270-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on May 6, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following nationwide class:

      "All persons in the United States with a customer address
      in a geographic market with no Cricket 4G/LTE network
      coverage who between November 1, 2012 and September 30,
      2014, purchased from Cricket a 4G/LTE monthly plan for
      service on Legacy Cricket's network, or later activated a
      4G/LTE plan with the device for service on Legacy
      Cricket's network;"

      As an alternative to the nationwide class, or in addition
      to it, the plaintiffs move for certification of the
      following statewide class:

      "All persons in California or other states with similar
      consumer protection laws with a customer address in a
      geographic market with no Cricket 4G/LTE network coverage
      who between November 1, 2012 and September 30, 2014,
      purchased from Cricket a 4G/LTE-capable Android smartphone
      with a 4G/LTE monthly plan for service on Legacy Cricket's
      network, or later activated a 4G/LTE plan with the device
      for service on Legacy Cricket's network;"

      The following persons shall be excluded from any class:
      (1) the defendant and its officers, directors, managers,
      employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (2) any person
      with a customer address outside of Cricket's network
      footprint but in a market with Sprint LTE coverage; (3)
      governmental entities; and (4) the judge(s) to whom this
      case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof;

   2. appointng the following plaintiffs as class
      representatives: Jamie Postpichal, Sarah Waters, and
      Ursula Freitas;

   3. certifying two claims for classwide adjudication: (1) a
      claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
      Organizations (or RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. section 1964(c);
      and (2) a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (or
      CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code section; and

   4. appointing Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP and Gupta Wessler PLLC
      as co-lead counsel to represent the class.

Cricket is an American wireless service provider, owned by AT&T
Inc. It provides wireless services to 10 million subscribers in the
United States. Cricket Wireless was founded in March 1999 by Leap
Wireless International.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 4,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tBr2Ab
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
          Austin Brane, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & C ARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com
                  ebarton @wcllp.com
                  mdickson@wcllp.com
                  abrane@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Taylor, Esq.
          Jennifer Bennett, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com
                  jon@guptawessler.com
                  jennifer@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE
          OF DANIEL T. LEBEL
          P.O. Box 720286
          San Francisco, CA 94172
          Telephone: 415-513-1414
          Facsimile: 877-563-7848
          E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914-5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886-8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
                  MS@BellLawKC.com
                  AT@ BellLawKC.com

DAISY BRAND: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daisy Brand, LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Daisy Brand, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02184
(S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Daisy Brand -- https://www.daisybrand.com/ -- produces and sells
dairy products. The Company offers sour cream, cottage cheese,
yogurt, and butter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: July 23 Class Cert. Briefing Extension OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA AKEEM, ET AL., v.
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry W. Ashe entered an order granting
the Parties' joint motion to enter an order extending the class
certification briefing deadlines for 60 days, or to July 23, 2021,
for the following reasons:

   (1) The parties have begun a mediation process with MAPS
       mediator Roger Javier. The parties would like an
       opportunity to explore the possibility of amicably
       resolving this matter, prior to filing class
       certification briefs.

   (2) The Plaintiffs' Counsel's Expert Ronald D. Schiable
       (Occupational Safety & Health Expert) contracted Covid-
       19, was hospitalized and placed on a respirator, and has
       been rendered unable to serve as an expert. The
       Plaintiffs' Counsel have retained a new expert Diane
       Trainor, PhD (Occupational Safety & Health Expert) this
       week. Dr. Trainor has requested additional time to review
       this case and render her export report and declaration in
       connection with class certification.

Considering the joint motion to extend the class certification
briefing deadlines so that the parties can pursue an amicable
resolution through mediation, says Judge Ashe.

Dasmen Residential is a privately held real estate investment and
management firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vE2x7c at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Suzette Bagneris
          Emile A. Bagneris II, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810-3995
          Facsimile: (504) 336-2198
          E-mail: sbagneris@ bagnerislawfirm.com
                  ebagneris@ bagnerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Walter Leger, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Landry, Esq.
          LEGER & SHAW
          935 Gravier Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 588-9043
          E-mail: wleger@legershaw.com
                  miandry@legershaw.com

               - and -

          Devonn Jarrett, Esq.
          JARRETT LAW FIRM
          643 Magazine Street, Suite 301(A)
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 491-6806
          E-mail: djarrett @jarrettlawgroup.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Dasmen Residential and RH Entities
are:

          Emest Gieger, Jr., Esq.
          Emily Eagan, Esq
          Michael Hill, Esq
          Nicholas Bergeron, Esq
          Tucker Bohren, Esq
          GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEYROUSE
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 654-1378
          E-mail: egieger @glllaw.com
                  eeagan @glllaw.com
                  mhill@gillaw.com
                  nbergeron@glllaw.com
                  Tbohren@glllaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Eastlake Development, LLC/RH
Eastlake are:

          Jonathan M. Walsh, Esq.
          Cassie P. Gailmor, Esq
          DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN & STILES
          755 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5141
          E-mail: jwalsh @deutschkerrigan.com
                  Cassie @deutschkerrigan.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Wilshire Insurance Company are:

          Jennifer E. Michel, Esq.
          Dakota Chenevert, Esq.
          Mary Dennard, Esq.
          Tabitha Durbin, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIJS, BISGAARD
          & SMITH
          100 E. Vermillion Street, Suite 300
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 326-5777
          E-mail: jenny.michel@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Dakota.chenevert @lewisbrisbois.com
                  Malise.Dennard @lewisbrisbois.com
                  Tabitha.Durbin @lewisbrisbois.com

The Attorneys for Latter & Blum Property are:

          Gustave A. Fritchie, IIT, Esq.
          Troy Bell, Esq.
          IRWIN, FRITCHIE, URQUHART
          & MOORE, LLC
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2100
          E-mail: gfritchie@irwinlle.com
                  tbell @irwinllc.com

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: July 23 Class Cert. Briefing Extension Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA AKEEM, ET AL., v.
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Parties jointly move the Court to enter an order
extending the class certification briefing deadlines for 60 days,
or to July 23, 2021, for the following reasons:

   (1) The parties have begun a mediation process with MAPS
       mediator Roger Javier. The parties would like an
       opportunity to explore the possibility of amicably
       resolving this matter, prior to filing class
       certification briefs.

   (2) The Plaintiffs' Counsel's Expert Ronald D. Schiable
       (Occupational Safety & Health Expert) contracted Covid-
       19, was hospitalized and placed on a respirator, and has
       been rendered unable to serve as an expert. The
       Plaintiffs' Counsel have retained a new expert Diane
       Trainor, PhD (Occupational Safety & Health Expert) this
       week. Dr. Trainor has requested additional time to review
       this case and render her export report and declaration in
       connection with class certification.

Dasmen Residential is a privately held real estate investment and
management firm.

A copy of the Parties motion dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Nn8xzV at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Suzette Bagneris
          Emile A. Bagneris II, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810-3995
          Facsimile: (504) 336-2198
          E-mail: sbagneris@ bagnerislawfirm.com
                  ebagneris@ bagnerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Walter Leger, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Landry, Esq.
          LEGER & SHAW
          935 Gravier Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 588-9043
          E-mail: wleger@legershaw.com
                  miandry@legershaw.com

               - and -

          Devonn Jarrett, Esq.
          JARRETT LAW FIRM
          643 Magazine Street, Suite 301(A)
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 491-6806
          E-mail: djarrett @jarrettlawgroup.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Dasmen Residential and RH Entities
are:

          Emest Gieger, Jr., Esq.
          Emily Eagan, Esq
          Michael Hill, Esq
          Nicholas Bergeron, Esq
          Tucker Bohren, Esq
          GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEYROUSE
          One Shell Square
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4800
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 654-1378
          E-mail: egieger @glllaw.com
                  eeagan @glllaw.com
                  mhill@gillaw.com
                  nbergeron@glllaw.com
                  Tbohren@glllaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Eastlake Development, LLC/RH
Eastlake are:

          Jonathan M. Walsh, Esq.
          Cassie P. Gailmor, Esq
          DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN & STILES
          755 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-5141
          E-mail: jwalsh @deutschkerrigan.com
                  Cassie @deutschkerrigan.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Wilshire Insurance Company are:

          Jennifer E. Michel, Esq.
          Dakota Chenevert, Esq.
          Mary Dennard, Esq.
          Tabitha Durbin, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIJS, BISGAARD
          & SMITH
          100 E. Vermillion Street, Suite 300
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 326-5777
          E-mail: jenny.michel@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Dakota.chenevert @lewisbrisbois.com
                  Malise.Dennard @lewisbrisbois.com
                  Tabitha.Durbin @lewisbrisbois.com

The Attorneys for Latter & Blum Property are:

          Gustave A. Fritchie, IIT, Esq.
          Troy Bell, Esq.
          IRWIN, FRITCHIE, URQUHART
          & MOORE, LLC
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-2100
          E-mail: gfritchie@irwinlle.com
                  tbell @irwinllc.com

DEARBORN LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blackstone Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE BLACKSTONE; DARCY CELESTE; NICHOLAS PERRY; BETTY
ROBERGE-HASKELL; and CHERYL SIKORA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEARBORN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01201 (N.D. Il., Mar. 3, 2021)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Blackstone was employed by the Defendant as claims
examiner.

Dearborn National Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm. The Company offers life insurance and other financial
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

               -and-

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               -and-

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
                  jack@siegellawgroup.biz


DEER-BELL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIERA COLLINS; and AMANDA BOGUE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEER-BELL, INC. D/B/A CLUB
RIO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Mar. 4, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as exotic dancer.

DEER-BELL, INC. D/B/A CLUB RIO operates as a strip club featuring
female exotic dancers operating in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Misch, Esq.
          Bradley P. Colborn, Esq.
          ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.
          131 South Taylor Street
          South Bend, Indiana 46601
          Telephone: (574) 288-1510
          Facsimile: (574) 288-1650
          E-mail: misch@aaklaw.com
                  colborn@aaklaw.com

               -and-

          Gregg C. Greenberg, , Esq.
          ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


DIRECT ENERGY: Amended Management Plan and Scheduling Dates OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA STANLEY, v. DIRECT
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-03759-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Kenneth M. Karas Judge entered an order adopting the Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order in accordance with Rules l
6-26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   1. The case is to be tried by a jury.

   2. No additional parties may be joined except with leave of
      the Court.

   3. Amended pleadings may not be filed except with leave of
      the Court.

   4. Initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(l), Fed. R. Civ.
      P., will be completed not later than October 6, 2020.

   5. All fact discovery is to be completed no later than June 7,
      2021.

   6. The parties are to conduct discovery in accordance with
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
      of the Southern District of New York.

   7. All expert disclosures, including reports, production of
     underlying documents and depositions are to be completed by
     November 5, 2021.

   8. All motions and applications shall be governed by the
      Court's Individual Practices, including pre-motion
      conference requirements. Any Class Certification motion is
      due within 30 days of the close of expert discovery.

   9. All counsel must meet for at least one hour to discuss
      settlement not later than two weeks following the close of
      fact discovery.

Direct Energy offers electricity, natural gas and home services
across the U.S. and Canada. Experience low rates, excellent
customer service and start saving.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/310j07H at no extra charge.[CC]

DOMINION ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Ruling in Favor of SCANA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit on the grant of summary judgment in favor of SCANA
Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Fluor
Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.  

In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina,
Inc., Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection
with the decision to stop construction at the NND Project.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.

In January 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of SCANA, DESC, Fluor
Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc.

In February 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This case is
pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that SCANA Corporation's
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit on the District Court's denial of its motion to intervene,
is pending.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation was completed on
January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger
Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger
Approval Order was issued by the South Carolina Commission on
December 21, 2018.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.

In June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of
Common Pleas in Lexington County. Dominion Energy appealed the
decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with a similar appeal in
the Metzler Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state
court.

In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC,
which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City
of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable
fraud claim.

In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss.

In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in
August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX).
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased EBIX stock or other securities between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ebix to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that Ebix and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift
card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there
was a material weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift
or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) Ebix's independent
auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with
Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a
commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel.

Interested Ebix investors have until April 23, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

CONTACT:

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

EDENTON BOATWORKS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edenton Boatworks
LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Edenton Boatworks LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01350 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2021).

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

Edenton Boatworks, LLC -- https://www.albemarleboats.com/ -- is
located in Edenton, North Carolina and is part of the Shipbuilding
& Repairing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


EVERYDAY TECHNOLOGIES: Compton Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Compton, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Everyday Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and to approve the Notice and
      Consent Form to be sent to the putative class members who
      are defined as:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt maintenance and
      production employees of Everyday Technologies, Inc.
      ("ETI") assigned to ETI's Sidney fabrication facility,
      Wapakoneta stamping facility, Sidney batch powder
      operations, and Sidney powder coat facility who were
      scheduled to work at least 40 hours of work in any
      workweek and who worked before the scheduled start and/or
      after the scheduled end of their shifts, beginning three
      years preceding the filing of this Motion and
      continuing through the date of judgment;"

   2. directing the Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's
      Order, to provide to the Named Plaintiff's Counsel a list
      (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the names
      and last known addresses (including zip code), personal
      email addresses of all putative Fair Labor Standards Act
      Collective Members; and

   3. allowing the Putative Collective Class Members 60 days
      from the date the Notice Packet is mailed and emailed to
      return their Consent to Join form and opt-in to this case.

ETI operates as a metal fabricator. The Company provides design and
prototype development, welding and laser cutting metal fabrication
and shearing.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 4,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lgOb7K
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

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

FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Delivery Staff, Key Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND KEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00773-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2021) challenges
policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and Ohio law.

The Plaintiff contends that she was employed as an hourly
non-exempt package handler/loader at the Defendant's Grove City,
Ohio location (Franklin County) from November 2019 to April 2020.
She and others similarly situated were non-exempt employees under
the FLSA and Ohio law, were paid an hourly wage, and performed
non-exempt work for Defendant. For example, in performing their
loading duties they were not responsible for the proper loading of
the vehicles.

Ms. Key adds that she and those similarly situated were required to
clock out at the end of their shifts, but were then also required
to continue working moving packages as they made their way out of
the building. This additional work was integral and indispensable
to the jobs they were hired to do and constituted the last
principal activities of their workday, she asserts.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not pay her and those
similarly situated for this additional compensable work. This
additional unpaid work typically took 20 minutes. She and other
similarly situated employees, as full-time employees, regularly
worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Therefore, she and other
similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FLUIDIGM CORP: Filing of Bid to Toss Saintjermain Suit Due April
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidigm Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the deadline for the
company to file a motion to dismiss the putative class action suit
entitled, Saintjermain, et al. v. Fluidigm Corporation, et al., is
due April 2021.

In September 2020, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the
Company (also naming its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer as defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in December
2020, and an amended complaint was filed on February 19, 2021. The
complaint, as amended, seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of persons and entities who acquired the company's
common stock between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019 and
alleges securities laws violations based on statements and alleged
omissions made by the Company during such period.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which motion is currently due to be filed in early April 2021.

Fluidigm said, "We believe the claims alleged in the complaint lack
merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously."

Fluidigm Corporation is a global company that improves life through
comprehensive health insight. The company's innovative technologies
and multi-omic tools are used by researchers to reveal meaningful
insights into health and disease, identify biomarkers to inform
decisions, and accelerate the development of more effective
therapies. The company creates, manufactures, and markets a range
of products and services, including instruments, reagents and
software that are used by researchers and clinical labs worldwide.
The company is based in South San Francisco, California.

FORMULA 1 CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrera Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICAELA ABAD HERRERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORMULA 1 CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A
FORMULA 1 CLEANERS); OLGA SHERMAN; and JONATHAN DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01905 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 4, 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 Herrera was employed by the Defendant as ironer.

FORMULA 1 CLEANERS, INC. owns and operates a Laundromat located at
St. Bronx, New York under the name "Formula 1 Cleaners". [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


FUBOTV INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of FuboTV, Inc. ("FuboTV" or "the
Company") (NYSE: FUBO) investors that acquired securities between
March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that FuboTV Inc. made materially
misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Fubo's offering of products was subject to cost escalations
that were undisclosed; (ii) FuboTV could not successfully perform
and compete as a sports book operator and was not able to
capitalize on its sole sports wagering opportunity; (iii) FuboTV's
inventory and data was not differentiated to allow it to achieve
long-term advertising growth forecasts and goals; (iv) FuboTV's
overstated its valuation in light of its total subscription and
revenue levels; (v) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide
the stated synergies and internal expertise, and did not expand the
FuboTV's addressable market into online sports wagering. FuboTV's
public statements were materially misleading and/or false at all
relevant times, as a result.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors of fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO). The
case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased FUBO stock or other securities between March 23, 2020 and
January 4, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that fuboTV and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors which included
misrepresentations about fuboTV's ability to grow subscription
levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost
escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability
to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company's
valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports
wagering. Investors learned the truth when a series of research
reports revealed that: (i) fuboTV's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) fuboTV's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) fuboTV could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) fuboTV's data and inventory was
not differentiated to allow fuboTV to achieve its long-term
advertising growth goals; (v) fuboTV's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies
and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's
addressable market into sports wagering.

Interested fuboTV investors have until April 19, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

CONTACT:

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

G&G COMPLETE: White Sues Over Automobile Inspection Failures
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN H. WHITE, JR., as personal representative of the ESTATE of
JALISA MORELAND, Plaintiff v. G&G COMPLETE AUTO REPAIR, INC. a/k/a
G&G TRUE BALANCE & ALIGNMENT; MCGEE TIRE STORES, INC.; and WALMART
STORES EAST, LP, Defendants, Case No. 122907595 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
13th Jud. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., March 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence by failing to warn the
Plaintiff's decedent about the necessity of removing the tire from
service due to its age and condition and the dangers associated
with the use of excessively aged tires.

According to the complaint, Defendant G&G Complete Auto Repair
marketed, sold, serviced, inspected, repaired, rotated, installed,
and/or placed a tire on the vehicle of the Plaintiff's decedent and
otherwise inspected, serviced, and repaired the vehicle in
Hillsborough County. As a direct and proximate result of the
negligence of the Defendants and defects in the tire and/or the
vehicle, the Plaintiff's decedent suffered catastrophic injuries
resulting in her untimely death.

G&G Complete Auto Repair, Inc., also known as G&G True Balance &
Alignment, is an automobile repair business located in Hillsborough
County, Florida.

McGee Tire Stores, Inc. is a company that offers automotive parts
and services based in Lakeland, Florida.

Walmart Stores East, LP is a retail store owner and operator based
in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         John Guyton, Esq.
         RYWANT, ALVAREZ, JONES, RUSSO & GUYTON, P.A.
         109 North Brush Street, Ste. 500
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 229-7007
         E-mail: JGuyton@rywantalvarez.com

               - and –

         W. Hampton Keen, Esq.
         Timothy D. Kenison, Esq.
         KEEN LAW GROUP
         500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 529
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Telephone: (561) 331-6515
         E-mail: hkeen@keenlawgroup.com;
                 tkenison@keenlawgroup.com
                 lmartinez@keenlawgroup.com

GEICO ADVANTAGE: Faces Cannuscio Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLO CANNUSCIO, KEVIN O'DONNELL, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY,
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO SECURE
INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through 10, Case No. A-21-829886-C (Nev.
Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., Feb. 23, 2021) seeks class-wide relief for
Geico's failure to provide and charge a fair and appropriate
insurance premium and to provide premium reduction to its Nevada
automobile insurance policyholders amid the COVID-pandemic.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all Nevada residents who held automobile insurance
policies through Geico as of March 1, 2020, and who have thereafter
continued to be Geico automobile policyholders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the class, along
with everyone in this country, have faced substantial life changes
since March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including
reduced driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and
miles driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the
Plaintiffs and the class members' vehicles. Geico has not taken the
appropriate action to reduce the Plaintiffs and the class members'
premiums to accurately reflect the decreased risk, the suit adds.

Mr. Cannuscio is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a current
automobile insurance policyholder of Geico. Mr. O'Donnell is a
resident of the State of Nevada, and a current automobile insurance
policyholder of Geico.

Geico is an insurance company licensed to do business in Nevada,
and it sells automobile insurance to Nevada residents and charges
and collects premiums from those citizens. Collectively, the
Defendants are all part of the Geico family of companies, licensed
in Nevada to sell automobile insurance policies within the State of
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

GEICO CASUALTY: Collective Action Cert. Bid Must Filed by Sept. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA WRIGHT v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00823-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Scott D. Johnson entered an order establishing deadlines
based on the parties' submissions.

   1. Exchanging initial disclosures        March 5, 2021
      required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1):

   2. The deadline to join other            March 5, 2021.
      parties or to amend the
      pleadings:

   3. Discovery, including discovery        December 17, 2021.
      from experts, pertaining to
      the issue of class
      certification:

   4. Expert reports for class
      certification must be
      submitted to opposing parties
      as follows:

      Plaintiff(s): September 3, 2021.

      Defendant(s): November 5, 2021.

   5. The Plaintiffs to file a Motion       September 3, 2021.
      for Conditional Class
      Certification of Collective
      Action and for Notice to
      Prospective Class Members:

   6. Deadline for Defendants to            November 5, 2021.
      file an opposition to any
      Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification of Collective
      Action:

   7. Deadline for Plaintiffs to            December 17, 2021.
      file a reply to Defendants'
      opposition:

GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life,
general liability, travel, and business insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vrZRtd at no extra charge.[CC]

GOLDEN NATURAL: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN NATURAL CO., JOSEPH
NARVAEZ, DARIO C. NARVAEZ, PURISIMA V. NARVAEZ, DIDIO A. DEVERA,
VICTORINA B. DEVERA, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV09669 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 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 when
employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period,
failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks,
failure to give meal breaks, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a painter from November
1994 until on or around March of 2020 when the company was
temporarily shut down due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He returned to
work in May of 2020.

Golden Natural Co. is a jewelry repair service in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 956-1111
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Tracking Users' Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
swarajyamag.com reports that in a significant ruling, a judge in
the US has directed Google to face a class-action lawsuit seeking
$5 billion, that claimed the tech giant is tracking and collecting
data even when people use the private 'Incognito' mode on its
Chrome browser.

District Judge Lucy Koh in the state of California ruled that
Google "did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged
data collection while the user is in private browsing mode",
reports Bloomberg.

A Google spokesperson told The Verge that the company disputes the
lawsuit's claims.

"We will defend ourselves vigorously against them," the
spokesperson was quoted as saying in the report.

Google Chrome's 'Incognito' mode gives users choice to browse the
internet without their activities being saved to either browser or
devices.

"As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab,
websites might be able to collect information about your browsing
activity during your session," Google reiterated.

The Chrome users filed a complaint in the US in June last year,
claiming that Google has a "pervasive data tracking business".

They alleged in the lawsuit that the "tracking persists even if
users take steps to protect their private information, such as
using incognito mode in Chrome, or private browsing in Safari and
other browsers".

On its part, Google has already announced to phase out third-party
cookies from Chrome browser.

The company said earlier this month that once third-party cookies
are phased out from its platforms, it will not build alternate
identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor
will it use them in its products.

Google Chrome had announced its intent to remove support for
third-party cookies last year.

Third-party cookies have been blocked in Apple Safari and Mozilla
Firefox and Google aims to do the same in Chrome. The cookies allow
advertisers to track you as you move between various websites. [GN]

HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Certify Class in Handloser Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY HANDLOSER and CERAFIN CASTILLO, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HCL
TECHNOLOGIES LTD. and HCL AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-01242-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Handloser and Castillo bring the putative class action
against the Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

HCL Technologies Ltd. is an Indian consulting and information
technology company, with its headquarters in Noida, India and its
United States headquarters in Sunnyvale, California.  HCL America,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HCL Technologies Ltd. and is
incorporated in California with its headquarters in Sunnyvale,
California.  The companies operate in the United States to provide
consulting and information technology services to clients.  HCL has
25 offices and approximately 20,000 employees and contractors in
the United States.

HCL contracts with companies based in the United States to supply
information technology and consulting services on a project-based
model.  This work can either be completed at HCL's India-based
offices ("offshore"), or at a client's office or local HCL
"delivery center" ("onsite").  The "Delivery" employees, who make
up the bulk of HCL's workforce, perform direct information
technology or consulting services for clients.  HCL also hires
employees to perform corporate functions like finance and
accounting ("enabling" employees) and sales employees.

The hiring process for sales and "enabling" corporate jobs is
different because the work does not involve fix-term assignments
for HCL clients, but rather internal work for HCL.  As such, WPCs
and HCL's clients are not involved in the selection process for
sales and "enabling" roles.  Sales positions instead generally
require the applicant to interview with the Human Resources ("HR")
department.  Enabling job applicants only go through an HR
interview if the position they are being considered for is a
"leadership position."

The Plaintiffs allege that during the hiring process HCL screens
local applicants through "culture fit interviews."  According to
them, "culture fit" is no more than a pretext for screening out
non-Indian local candidates.  The Plaintiffs do not clarify whether
they allege that candidates for all job types receive "culture fit
interviews," but evidence suggests that HR sometimes conducts
"culture fit" interviews for sales positions.  They do not present
evidence that the HR interview for "enabling" leadership positions
is used to screen for culture fit.

The Plaintiffs further allege that HCL employs a uniform,
companywide policy regarding how to prioritize candidates for open
onsite positions.  This prioritization rule allegedly considers
candidates in the following order: Prioritization of profiles--best
fit with visa from offshore, best fit with visa available at
onsite, good fit + up-skilling/cross-skilling from offshore, and
flag for recruitment at onsite.  The Plaintiffs allege that this
prioritization rule means that HCL gives first consideration for
open positions to visa-ready Indian candidates, and only considers
local United States candidates if no visa-ready Indian candidates
are available.

As the Plaintiffs acknowledge, a number of onsite positions that
HCL seeks to fill explicitly exclude candidates on visas.  Some
positions must be filled by United States citizens or green card
holders by law, and other positions are restricted to United States
citizens or green card holders because "regulatory pressures" limit
the availability of work visas for those roles.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the instant action on March 7,
2019.  On June 12, 2019, they filed a First Amended Complaint.  On
June 26, 2019, the Defendants filed an answer.

On Oct. 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Their Second Amended Complaint alleges three claims: (1) disparate
treatment on the basis of race and citizenship in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1981; (2) disparate treatment on the basis of race
and national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et
seq.; and (3) disparate impact on the basis of race and national
origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq.

The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class comprised of "All
individuals who are not of South Asian race, or Indian national
origin, or visa holders who applied for positions with (or within)
HCL in the U.S. and were not hired."  On Nov. 8, 2019, the
Defendants filed an answer to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint.

On Oct. 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class
certification.  They have amended their proposed class definition
and now seek to certify the following class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) or 23(b)(2): All individuals who: (a) are
United States citizens, not of South Asian race, and not of Indian
national origin; (b) who sought a position; (c) with HCL
Technologies Limited or HCL America, Inc.; (d) in the United
States; (e) that would have been Career Level 3 or above; (f)
between March 7, 2015 and the date of class certification; and (g)
were not offered employment.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class pursuant
to Rule 23(c)(4) for the purpose of resolving an unspecific number
of common questions, include (1) whether HCL engaged in a pattern
or practice of discrimination in hiring and staffing; (2) whether
HCL's practices result in a disparate impact on the class; (3)
whether punitive damages are appropriate; and (4) whether
injunctive relief is appropriate.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek to have their counsel, Kotchen & Low
LLP, appointed as the class counsel.  In connection with the motion
for class certification, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative
motion to file under seal.

On Nov. 17, 2020, the Defendants filed an opposition.  In
connection with that opposition, the Defendants filed an
administrative motion to file under seal.  On Dec. 11, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed a reply.  In connection with that reply, the
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal.  On
Dec. 18, 2020, the Defendants filed an administrative motion to
file a sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' reply.  On Dec. 22, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Defendants' administrative
motion.

The Plaintiffs contend that they have met all threshold
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a), and
therefore seek certification of a damages class under Rule
23(b)(3); an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2), or a
common issues class under Rule 23(c)(4).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' class certification
motion fails on six independent grounds: (1) failure to establish
commonality; (2) failure to establish typicality; (3) failure to
establish adequacy; (4) predominance of individualized issues over
common questions of the proposed class; (5) class action treatment
is inferior to individual actions; and (6) failure to satisfy
requirements for a Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4) class.

Judge Koh addresses numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
predominance.  Because the Plaintiffs' failure to establish
commonality, typicality, and predominance is sufficient to require
denial of class certification, she need not reach the Defendants'
other grounds for denying class certification.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not established
commonality for at least seven reasons.  First, for many members of
the putative class, the Defendants' challenged hiring practices
could not have been the cause of the candidate's adverse employment
decision.  Second, for roughly 50% of job requests during the
proposed class period HCL did not fill an open position with any
candidate because either (1) the client withdrew the job request
because it could not find a suitable candidate from HCL; (2) the
client filled the job request with its own direct applicant; or (3)
the position was filled by an HCL competitor.  Third, the putative
class also lacks commonality because there are reasons that job
candidates were not hired that are independent of the Defendants'
alleged discriminatory hiring practices.

Fourth, the putative class lacks a common hiring experience that
could tie their individual employment decisions together and
produce the requisite commonality.  Fifth,  the putative class also
lacks commonality because during the proposed class period, the
Defendants utilized roughly 1,800 different hiring managers across
the country, each of whom was empowered with discretion to make
staffing and hiring decisions.  Sixth, each of these class members
represents an individual employment decision that necessarily
involved different factual circumstances and decision-making by
local hiring managers.  Finally, the Plaintiffs have made
essentially no effort to establish that Defendants' employment
policies and procedures constrain discretion or follow a "common
direction" from HCL's management.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that
"other class members have been injured by the same course of
conduct" as Named Plaintiffs. Handloser and Castillo's injuries are
not typical of the putative class for several reasons.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23(a)(3), the Judge denies
Plaintiffs' request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) or
23(b)(2).

Finally, even if the Plaintiffs could establish commonality and
typicality under Rule 23(a), the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).
Although Plaintiffs argue that common questions predominate in the
case over individual questions, the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish predominance under Rule (b)(3) for four reasons.

First, over 1,000 job requests during the proposed class period
explicitly excluded visa holders from consideration.  The need for
individual inquiries of this kind will predominate over common
questions of law or fact to the putative class.  Second, for as
many as two-thirds of job requests during the proposed class
period, HCL's client interviewed the job candidate and provided
feedback to HCL.  hus, for Castillo and other putative class
members, an individual inquiry into the client interview and
evaluation process will predominate over questions of law or fact
common to the class as a whole.

Third, for approximately 50% of job requests during the proposed
class period, HCL did not fill an open position with any candidate
because either (1) the client withdrew the job request; (2) the
client filled the job request with its own direct applicant; or (3)
the position was filled by an HCL competition.   An individual
inquiry will therefore be necessary to determine whether a putative
class member was not hired because either the client withdrew the
job request; the client filled the job request with a direct
applicant to the client; or an HCL competitor filled the job
request.  These individual inquiries will predominate over common
questions of law or fact to the putative class.

Fourth, although the Plaintiffs' evidence suggests that "culture
fit" interviews may have been conducted by HR for sales positions,
the Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that candidates for
delivery positions were given culture fit interviews or interviewed
by HR.

As such, even if the Plaintiffs had established commonality and
typicality under Rule 23(a), the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish predominance.  The Judge must therefore deny their motion
to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs next argue that if the Court does not certify a
class action under Rule 23(b)(3), it should certify a class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).

The Judge denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a common issues
class under Rule 23(c)(4).  She holds that the Plaintiffs have not
met the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2)
and 23(a)(3), and therefore certification under Rule 23(c)(4) is
inappropriate.  Also, the Plaintiffs' perfunctory justification for
certification itself requires the Court to deny certification of a
Rule 23(c)(4) class.

Finally, the Plaintiffs request that their counsel, Kotchen & Low
LLP, be appointed class counsel.  However, the Plaintiffs' request
to appoint Kotchen & Low LLP as the class counsel is moot because
the Judge denies their motion to certify a class.

In sum, Judge Koh finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy
the requirements of Rules 23(a)(2), 23(a)(3), and 23(b)(3) with
respect to their putative class, and that the Plaintiffs have
likewise failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(c)(4).
Accordingly, she denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yvbrhc9x from Leagle.com.


HOME DEPOT: Smart Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Smart, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No.
2021-CA-0296 was removed from the Marion County Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida on March 12,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00153 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot --
https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is the largest home improvement
retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction
products, and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Theodore Schatt, Esq.
          SCHATT HESSER MCGRAW
          328 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 100
          PO Box 4440
          Ocala, FL 34478-4440
          Phone: (352) 789-6520
          Fax: (352) 789-6570
          Email: tschatt@schatthesser.com


HUMAN POWER: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Power Of N
Company. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Human Power Of
N Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-02210 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Human Power sells health and wellness products, namely,
nutraceuticals for use as dietary supplements, dietetic foods and
beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Chauhan Purported Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Chauhan
v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, styled
Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.


The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on January 4, 2021.

The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between September
28, 2019 and October 7, 2020.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7,
2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's New Drug Application for Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or
"OCA") for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis and the use of Ocaliva in patients with primary
biliary cholangitis, as well as the Company's operations, financial
performance and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary
atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu & Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs'
appeal in the purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Hou
Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is
pending.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were
made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from
June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well
as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety,
and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the
Company.

On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On
September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set
aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended
complaint, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did
not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.

On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on
January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief
challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020
judgment and other orders entered in this action.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary
atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit
https://neighborwebsj.com/[GN]

JOHN WETZEL: Court Tosses McMillen Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEENAN MCMILLEN v. JOHN
WETZEL, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00192 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Maureen P. Kelly entered an order:

   1. denying the motion to certify class; and

   2. denying appointment of counsel;

The Court said, as a pro se prisoner, the Plaintiff cannot
adequately represent the interests of his fellow prisoners in a
class action suit. See Alexander v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 160 F.
Appx 249, 250 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2005) ("a prisoner proceeding pro se
may not seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates").[CC]

The nature of suit state Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison involving Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]

KLAUSNER LUMBER: Filing Extension of Bid to Certify Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE RAYMOND v.
KLAUSNER LUMBER ONE LLC and KLAUSNER LUMBER TWO LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01380-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting the parties an additional 30 days from
March 5, 2021 to prepare a Case Management Report and to file the
Motion to Certify Class pursuant to the Court's Rules.

The Defendants' time to answer the Complaint filed in this matter
has elapsed as of January 25, 2021. The Plaintiff has filed for a
Clerk's Default. The Plaintiff is aware that the Defendants have
filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy but have not moved to stay this
matter or filed any other paper in this matter. The requested
extension of time will not appreciably delay the scheduling of
events in this case, the Plaintiff says.

Klausner Lumber One (KL1) and Klausner Lumber Two (KL2), are
Southern Yellow Pine sawmills.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30XWf4h at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Thomas L. Dickens, III
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418 2042
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3354
          E-mail: tdickens@forthepeople.com
                  mfermaint@forthepeople.com

KRAMER & FRANK: Grant of Judgment on Pleadings in Coburn Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN COBURN, Appellant v. KRAMER & FRANK, P.C.,
Respondent, Case No. ED108948 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Eastern District, Division One, affirmed the
circuit court's judgment granting Kramer & Frank's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

On May 6, 2019, Coburn commenced the lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of the City of St. Louis by filing her two-count Class Action
Petition against Kramer & Frank, a "collection law firm" in
Missouri.  On behalf of herself and a group of similarly-situated
individuals, Coburn asserts violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Section 407.0101 et seq.) ("MMPA") and
a claim for unjust enrichment arising from Kramer & Frank's alleged
"misuse of court process to obtain default judgments against Coburn
and over 100 putative class members.

At the core of her MMPA and unjust enrichment claims, Coburn
alleges that Kramer & Frank, on behalf of its clients, obtained
default judgments in certain collection lawsuits without first
obtaining personal jurisdiction because the person who served her
(and the other putative class Plaintiffs) in these lawsuits was not
properly appointed by the circuit court or the court clerk to serve
process "as required by law," rendering the judgments void.  In her
unjust enrichment claim, she similarly alleges that it would be
unjust to allow Kramer & Frank to retain the benefit of the default
judgments and/or monies collected after said judgments were entered
from Coburn and the putative class members because it received
these benefits under the guise that Missouri courts had personal
jurisdiction over Coburn and the putative class members when
personal jurisdiction did not exist.

On these grounds, the Class Action Petition seeks class
certification and that Coburn be appointed as the class
representative, as well as requests all available damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  More
importantly, in both her MMPA and unjust enrichment claims, Coburn
also requests the following specific relief: "An order or judgment
declaring that the judgments entered against Karen Coburn and the
class members are void as a matter of law and ordering Kramer &
Frank to set aside all such judgments."

On April 14, 2014, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of its client
Metropolitan Sewer District ("MSD"), commenced the underlying
collection lawsuit against Coburn in the Circuit Court of the City
of St. Louis, Associate Division ("Collection Case").  In the
Collection Case, MSD alleged that Coburn owed it a debt of $571.80
for overdue wastewater and stormwater charges levied pursuant to
MSD Ordinances 13405 and 13466.

On April 14, 2014, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of MSD, filed a
request to appoint Amy Post as special process server in the
Collection Case ("SPS Request").  The SPS Request appears to be the
only such request filed in the Collection Case, and thus, it does
not appear that MSD requested the appointment of anyone other than
Post as special process server.

MSD, through its attorney, Kramer & Frank, obtained a default
judgment against Coburn.  On May 28, 2014, Kramer & Frank filed a
Transcript of Judgment in the Collection Case on behalf of MSD,
which reflected a principal amount of $513.57, attorney fees of
$85.77, and court costs of $148.00, for a total amount of $747.34.
On Feb. 4, 2015, Kramer & Frank, on behalf of MSD, filed a
satisfaction of judgment, which confirmed that the Default Judgment
had been satisfied.

On July 15, 2019, Kramer & Frank timely filed its answer to the
Class Action Petition, which denied any liability to Coburn and
asserted several affirmative defenses thereto.

On Sept. 19, 2019, Kramer & Frank filed its Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings and supporting memorandum, arguing that it was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the pleadings and
the undisputed facts.  Specifically, it argued that Coburn cannot
collaterally attack the Default Judgment because she is estopped
from doing so in that she has satisfied it, thereby recognizing the
validity of the underlying debt and Default Judgment, which renders
the Class Action Case moot.  It also argued that the underlying
premise of Coburn's claims -- that neither the circuit court nor
the circuit clerk approved the appointment of Post -- is false and
fails as a matter of law.  Finally, Kramer & Frank argued that the
Class Action Petition fails to state a valid claim under the MMPA
or for unjust enrichment.

After full briefing and a hearing thereon, by "Order and Judgment"
dated April 1, 2020, the circuit court granted Kramer & Frank's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor
of Kramer & Frank and against Coburn in the Class Action Case.

The appeal follows.  Coburn raises one point on appeal, arguing
that the circuit court erred in granting Kramer & Frank's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings because Missouri law requires that an
order of the circuit court or the circuit clerk be entered
appointing a special process server in order for service by a
process server to be valid.  In this case, Coburn argues that no
such order specifically appointing Post was entered in the
Collection Case, and thus, the Default Judgment is void as a matter
of law for lack of personal jurisdiction, even though she does not
allege lack of actual notice.  Coburn also argues that she has
stated claims for violations of the MMPA and for unjust
enrichment.

Before the Court of Appeals can address the merits of Coburn's
point on appeal, it must first address the threshold issue of
Coburn's undisputed satisfaction of the Default Judgment, which
Kramer & Frank argues estops her from collaterally attacking the
Default Judgment in the case, and thereby renders her claims in the
Class Action Case moot.  This issue was raised in Kramer & Frank's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and was again argued in its
brief to the Court.  Regardless, this is an issue the Court can and
should address.

The Court of Appeals holds that while Coburn satisfied the Default
Judgment shortly after it was entered five years ago, it would be
difficult to conclude that her satisfaction was voluntary under
these facts.  Accordingly, it finds that Coburn's satisfaction of
the Default Judgment was involuntary within the meaning of the
mootness doctrine, and thus, the case is not moot.  Thus, having
determined that Coburn's collateral attack on the judgment is not
barred as moot, the Court now turns to the merits of her point on
appeal.

As the relevant facts in the case are not in dispute, the Court of
Appeals is essentially left to decide one core legal question with
respect to the circuit court's personal jurisdiction over Coburn in
the Collection Case: Whether the "appointment" of a special process
server pursuant to Section 506.140.1 and Rule 54.01 requires the
circuit judge or the circuit clerk to enter an order granting a
plaintiff's motion requesting the appointment of a designated or
nominated special process server, or whether the "appointment" may
occur by the circuit clerk simply issuing an appropriate summons.
If the issuance of an appropriate summons by the circuit clerk is
all that is necessary under Section 506.140.1 or Rule 54.01, a
corollary question is whether such an "appointment" can be
accomplished by a summons that does not name the designated or
nominated special process server, but rather, simply states:
"SPECIAL."  These questions appear to present issues of first
impression in Missouri.

Thus, if the circuit court in the Collection Case did not obtain
personal jurisdiction over Coburn, then the Default Judgment would
be void and subject to collateral attack.  However, if the circuit
court did obtain personal jurisdiction over Coburn, then it would
not be subject to any collateral attack and should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeals holds that upon the face of the record in the
case, the Default Judgment is not void as a matter of law, and
thus, it is not subject to collateral attack because any defects or
irregularities did not deny Coburn due process or otherwise violate
applicable Missouri law to a sufficient degree to preclude
jurisdiction.  It agrees with the trial court's judgment and
rationale.

First, the Court recognizes that it would have been better if in
the Collection Case: (1) the circuit court had entered a signed
copy of Kramer & Frank's request to appoint Post as special process
server, and/or (2) the circuit clerk had specifically recited
Post's name in the Summons (rather than simply stating "SPECIAL").
However, it believes that these omissions, at most, constitute a
defect or irregularity in the form of the Summons, and thus, only
subjected the Default Judgment to potentially being set aside via a
timely motion pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(3) on the grounds of
irregularity.

Second, while it agrees that an executed order of the circuit court
is indeed one way in which the appointment of a special process
server can occur under Section 506.140.1 (and perhaps the best
way), the Court declines Coburn's invitation to hold that it is the
only way to accomplish such an appointment.  Stated alternatively,
although a court order is adequate to appoint a special process
server, it is not necessary.

Third, these omissions, to the extent they constitute
irregularities or defects in service, do not subject the Default
Judgment to collateral attack in this (or any other similar)
proceeding because, under the rules set forth in  Hirst v. Cramer,
195 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Mo. banc 1946), they are not so "radical" as
to "amount to no process at all as where it wholly fails to give
the party the information it is expected to convey, or where the
attempted service is so faulty that it does not reach defendant at
all."  As noted, Coburn does not dispute that she received the
Summons and petition in the Collection Case, nor does she take
issue with the notice provided therein.  Accordingly, the Court
holds that the Default Judgment is not void and subject to
collateral attack.

The Court of Appeals also briefly addresses Coburn's argument that
she has stated claims under the MMPA and for unjust enrichment.  As
noted, it has found that the core allegation of both claims is that
the Default Judgment is void as a matter of law for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  At oral argument, Coburn's counsel
expressly admitted that the Class Action Petition is indeed an
attempt to "impeach" the Default Judgment.  Accordingly, because
the Court holds that the Default Judgment is not void for the
reasons set forth herein above, and thus, is not subject to
collateral attack, it also holds that Coburn's MMPA and unjust
enrichment claims fail as a matter of law, and further discussion
thereof is not warranted.  Regardless, Coburn's MMPA claim, like
her unjust enrichment claim, is dismissed because she is foreclosed
from launching a collateral attack on the Default Judgment, which
is exactly what both claims seek to do.

Finally, the Court has considered Coburn's other arguments in
support of her point on appeal, and it likewise finds that they are
without merit but do not merit further discussion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals denied the Appellant's
point on appeal.  It affirmed judgment of the trial court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ucb9sj8 from Leagle.com.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wis. App. Affirms Summary Judgment Against V&J
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, V&J EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., V&J NATIONAL
ENTERPRISES, LLC, V&J UNITED ENTERPRISES, LLC AND V&J HOLDING
COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Respondents, Appeal No. 2019AP2415 (Wis. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirms the trial
court's:

    (i) order granting summary judgment in favor of Liberty; and
   (ii) denial of V&J's motion for default judgment.

V&J owns restaurant franchise operations throughout the United
States.  For these businesses, V&J obtained various commercial
insurance policies with Liberty, which included Employee Benefits
Liability ("EBL") coverage.

Beginning in 2015, six class-action lawsuits against V&J were filed
in New York.  Those actions alleged that V&J had improperly
withheld tips from delivery drivers, failed to fully compensate
them for overtime, and under-reimbursed them for the use of their
personal vehicles.  V&J, in turn, filed the action underlying this
appeal against Liberty in April 2018, alleging breach of contract
because Liberty had failed to defend and indemnify V&J in the New
York actions.  It sought a declaratory judgment that its policies
with Liberty provided coverage under the EBL endorsements.

Liberty failed to answer that complaint.  As a result, V&J filed a
motion for default judgment.  Liberty responded with a motion to
enlarge its time to answer the complaint.  It explained that V&J's
complaint had named the wrong defendant; its policies were issued
by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., not Liberty Mutual Insurance
Co., and they are "entirely different" entities.  Additionally,
Liberty stated that the policy number referenced in the complaint
was formatted erroneously.  As a result, it had not been able to
locate V&J's policies when it initially received the complaint.

Liberty argued that V&J was not entitled to a default judgment
because not only had they named the wrong defendant, they had also
served the complaint on yet a third different entity, LM General
Insurance Co.  In the alternative, Liberty asserted that its
failure to answer was the result of excusable neglect due to the
problems with identifying the policies, and not because of a lack
of diligence or good faith.

A hearing on the motion for default judgment was held in September
2018.  Giving weight to the "interest of justice" to the extent
that it is preferable to "address matters if it can on the merits,"
the court denied V&J's motion for default judgment.

Liberty subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.  It
asserted that the EBL provisions of V&J's policies only provide
coverage for an "act, error or omission that is negligently
committed in the administration of V&J's employee benefit program."
Liberty contended that the actions filed in New York relate to
"unpaid or underpaid wages," which are not included in the policy
definition of employee benefits programs.  Furthermore, it
contended that the allegations in the New York actions described an
"intentional, willful and knowing company policy" of V&J, as
opposed to negligent acts, and thus were excluded from coverage.

The trial court agreed. It held that the EBL coverage provisions in
the policies issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. were
"unambiguous" and "did not cover the wage and compensation claims"
alleged in the New York actions.  Therefore, Liberty did not have a
duty to defend or indemnify V&J in those actions.  The court
further ruled that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was an
improperly named defendant, as argued by Liberty in its motion, and
which was not disputed by V&J.  Therefore, the court granted
Liberty's motion for summary judgment for both entities, and
dismissed V&J's claims with prejudice.  The appeal follows.

Denial of Motion for Default Judgment and Discovery

The Court of Appeals concludes that it need not address the
arguments raised by V&J regarding its motion for default judgment
because, based on the outcome of Liberty's summary judgment motion,
the matter of the default judgment motion is essentially moot.
V&J's initial complaint listed only Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. as
a defendant; its motion for default judgment was also solely
against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.  V&J did not amend its
complaint to add Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. until after the
trial court had denied its motion for default judgment.

Although the Liberty entities are affiliated, they are in fact
separate entities.  The fact that V&J's claims against Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company were dismissed without dispute -- on
summary judgment or on appeal -- renders V&J's arguments relating
to the denial of its default judgment against that entity as
"purely academic" and without a "practical effect on the underlying
controversy"; in other words, the denial of the default judgment
motion is a moot issue.  Thus, the Court of appeals does not
discuss the issue further and, accordingly, it affirms the trial
court's denial of V&J's motion for default judgment.

Grant of Summary Judgment

The Court of Appeals concludes, as the trial court did, that the
nature of the New York actions involve wage claims, and not
employee benefits.  It further concludes that the provisions in the
EBL endorsements are unambiguous.  Accordingly, it rejects V&J's
contention that these allegations should be construed as arising
from the administration of an employee benefits program for
transportation subsidies.  The Appellate Court therefore concludes
that there was no initial grant of coverage for the New York
actions under the EBL endorsements to V&J's policies with Liberty.

Moreover, the trial court also found that the allegations against
V&J involved intentional conduct, as opposed to negligence.
Specifically, the court stated that the allegations in the New York
actions were the result of "wage, overtime and expense
reimbursement policies": The intentional act of creating a company
policy.  That V&J may have "misconstrued applicable state and
federal law" in establishing these policies "does not convert this
conduct to a negligent act."  Put another way, because the EBL
endorsements apply only to negligent acts committed in the
administration of employee benefits, the Court of Appeals agrees
with the trial court's conclusion that there was no initial grant
of coverage on that basis, either.

For these reasons, based on its review of the policies, as well as
the rest of the record and our application of the relevant law, the
Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court properly granted
summary judgment in the case.  Accordingly, it affirms.

Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fsh2v92e from Leagle.com.


LILY SILK: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lily Silk Bedding,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Lily Silk Bedding,
Inc. d/b/a Lilysilk.com, Case No. 1:21-cv-01338 (E.D.N.Y., March
12, 2021).

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

LilySilk -- https://www.lilysilk.com/ -- offers the delicate range
of silk pillowcase, silk nightwear, silk comforter,silk pillows,
silk sheets, silk bedding sets and fashion silk clothes in
different styles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCKY BOY: Aguilar Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELIN AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKY BOY ENTERPRISES, INC.; JOSE HERNANDEZ;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09550
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code,
the Public Policy, andthe Government Code including wrongful
termination, sexual harassment, gender/sex discrimination, failure
to prevent discrimination and harassment, common law and statutory
assault, sexual battery, negligent hiring and retention of unfit
employee, unlawful retaliation, unfair competition, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, failure to pay earned wages, and
waiting time penalties.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cashier by the Defendant from on or
about April 17, 2017 through on or about December 23,2018.

Lucky Boy Enterprises, Inc. is a sole proprietorship located at 531
East Walnut Street in Pasadena, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
         572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 796-7470

MAC AND SONS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mac And Sons, Inc.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Mac And Sons, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02209 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Mac And Sons, Inc. -- https://www.macandsons.net/ -- offers new
construction and renovations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACROGENICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Hill Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
securities class action suit initiated by Todd Hill, is pending.

On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Scott Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. James Karrels,
as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading
statements regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.

On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts a putative class
period stemming from February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2020.
Plaintiff filed an Opposition brief on January 29, 2021, to which
the Company plans to file a timely reply.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."

MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.

MAUSER USA: California Court Orders Closure of Valenzuela Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON VALENZUELA, Plaintiff v. MAUSER USA, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00094-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California directed the Clerk of the Court
to assign a district judge to the case for the purpose of closing
the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary
dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Valenzuela, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed the action in Merced Superior Court on Nov. 6,
2019, against Mauser USA, LLC, BWAY Corp., and Mauser Packaging
Solutions.  On Jan. 17, 2020, the Defendants removed the matter to
the Eastern District of California.  Pursuant to the stipulation of
the parties, the matter has been stayed to allow the parties to
complete mediation and negotiate a settlement.

On March 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The filing indicates that the parties have executed a
long-form settlement agreement regarding a global resolution of the
Plaintiff's class action claims asserted in the action and his
representative claims pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), asserted in a separate action
pending in the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
The Plaintiff indicates he has amended his state court action to
add the class claims currently pending in the action and he has
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action and
PAGA settlement in the San Bernardino Superior Court.

Magistrate Judge Boone explains that the Ninth Circuit has held
that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order
any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary
judgment.  A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing,
no court order is required, the parties are left as though no
action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the
district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.  In the
instant action, no Defendant has filed an answer or other
responsive pleading.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) the claims, issues or defenses of a class
that has been certified or is proposed to be certified for the
purposes of settlement can only be settled, voluntarily dismissed,
or compromised with the court's approval.  On Dec. 1, 2003, Rule
23(e) was amended to allow the parties to a proposed class action
to stipulate to dismissal of the action without any judicial
approval where the class has not yet been certified.  The drafters
of the amendments intended to limit the reach of judicial approval
of voluntary dismissals of class action.  While the voluntary
dismissal has been considered problematic, the revised rule does
allow the parties to voluntarily dismiss the action without court
approval where the class has not been certified.

Magistrate Judge Boone finds that no class has been certified and
the matter is being dismissed as to all parties without prejudice.
Therefore, he finds that dismissal does not require court approval
under Rule 23(e).

Accordingly, he directed the Clerk of the Court to assign a
district judge to the case for the purpose of closing the case and
then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of the
action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kdaf73wr from Leagle.com.


MDL 2804: Reconsideration Bid on Class Certification Order Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-md-02804 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Dan
Aaron Polster entered an order denying Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
(NAS) Guardians' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Opinion
and Order denying their motion for class certification.  

On March 1, 2021, the Defendants collectively filed a response in
opposition. The Defendants begin their response with the assertion:
"The Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's order
denying class certification fundamentally misconstrues both the
order itself and the governing case law." The Court fully agrees.

The Court also said, "Easily stands by its conclusion that it is
not administratively feasible to make individualized, case-by-case
determinations of whether each potential class member's ward
received a diagnosis of opioid-related NAS at or near birth.
Finally, the Guardians also argue the Court made clear errors of
law. But these arguments rely on the same mischaracterizations
addressed above."

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NkBwEk at no extra charge.[CC]

MEDICREDIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Miles' 1st Amended Complaint Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY MILES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-CV-01186 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denied Medicredit's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiff Miles brings the putative class action against Defendant
Medicredit, a medical debt collector, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges Medicredit violated Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by placing non-emergency telephone
calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers by using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and an artificial or
prerecorded voice, without their prior express consent.  In the
Plaintiff's case, he alleges Medicredit placed six calls to his
cellular telephone between January 2018 and February 2018 using an
artificial or prerecorded voice without his prior express written
consent.

Medicredit moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the
Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims
because the TCPA provision at issue, Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), was
unconstitutional at the time it allegedly called Plaintiff, based
upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Barr v. Am. Ass'n of
Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAP").
Alternatively, Medicredit moves to dismiss the class allegations
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to satisfy the predominance
requirement of Rule 23.

The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on Feb. 4, 2021.  On
March 8, 2021, Medicredit filed a reply.  Although Medicredit's
reply is untimely, the Court has considered it.  The Court has also
considered the Plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority filed
on Feb. 22, 2021.  The motion is therefore fully briefed.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1)

In AAPC, 140 S. Ct., the Supreme Court held that the
"government-debt exception," which permitted robocalls "solely to
collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States" while
leaving robocalls involving other types of content subject to the
TCPA's prohibitions, resulted in an unconstitutional content-based
restriction on free speech.  However, the Supreme Court did not
invalidate the entire statute.  Rather, it held that the invalid
government-debt exception could be severed from the statute.

Judge Ross acknowledges there is a direct conflict in district
court decisions issued after AAPC over the liability of robocallers
under Section 227(b) for calls that took place between Nov. 2, 2015
and July 6, 2020, and the Eighth Circuit has not yet addressed the
issue.  However, he says the clear majority of cases to consider
the issue have allowed parties to continue to bring Section 227(b)
claims post-AAPC.  For these reasons, he concludes that the
Plaintiff states a viable claim over which the Court possesses
subject matter jurisdiction.  Accordingly, he denied Medicredit's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Class Allegations Under Rule 12(b)(6)

The Plaintiff brings the action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b) on behalf of himself and two classes of similarly
situated individuals as defined below:

     a. ATDS Class: All persons and entities throughout the United
States (1) to whom Medicredit, Inc. placed, or caused to be placed,
at least one call (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
telephone service, by (3) using an automatic telephone dialing
system, (4) from Dec. 16, 2017 through and including the date of
class certification, (5) where the called party did not have an
account with Medicredit, Inc.

     b. Prerecorded Voice Class: All persons and entities
throughout the United States (1) to whom Medicredit, Inc. placed,
or caused to be placed, at least one call (2) directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, by (3) using an
artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from December 16, 2017 through
and including the date of class certification, (5) where the called
party did not have an account with Medicredit, Inc.

Medicredit argues that the Plaintiff's class definitions cannot
satisfy the Rule 23 predominance requirement because they require
individualized inquiries to determine class membership and whether,
under the circumstances, there could be TCPA liability.

Construing the class claims liberally in the Plaintiff's favor,
Judgr Ross finds the amended complaint contains sufficient facts
that state a plausible class action claim against Medicredit.
Furthermore, he hesitates to foreclose the possibility of
class-wide relief at the pleading stage.  Instead, the Plaintiff
should be given the opportunity to conduct discovery on class
certification issues.  The Court and others have reached similar
conclusions.  The Judge, therefore, denied Medicredit's motion to
dismiss the class allegations at this time.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Defendant will file an
answer to the Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rs6fj3s from Leagle.com.


MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Aldridge's Claims v. DOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mary Aldridge; Ben Alexander; Tara Alexander; Barbara
Allen; Theodore Ambrose; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
Mississippi Department of Corrections; State of Mississippi; Burl
Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections; Tate
Reeves, In his official capacity as Governor of the State of
Mississippi; John Doe Defendants 1-25, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 20-60311 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirms the district court's order dismissing the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' claims with prejudice and without leave to
amend.

The Plaintiff class consists of 890 current and former employees of
the Mississippi Department of Corrections.  The Employees sued
Defendants-Appellees, the Mississippi Department of Corrections,
the State of Mississippi, the Department of Corrections
Commissioner in her official capacity, and the Governor of
Mississippi (together, "DOC") in Mississippi state court, asserting
violations of the FLSA and state law.  Specifically, Employees
alleged that the DOC failed to properly calculate and dispense
wages, including overtime wages, for hours worked.

The Employees claimed that the DOC was negligent, negligent per se,
and grossly negligent for failing to comply with both the FLSA and
Mississippi state law.  They also alleged negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, conversion, civil conspiracy to
commit civil conversion, reckless disregard for the rights and
safety of the employees, and res ipsa loquitur, without mentioning
the FLSA in these claims, but all based on failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime compensation, which is only covered by the FLSA
in Mississippi.  The Employees lastly alleged violations of the
FLSA, presumably because Mississippi law does not provide for
minimum wages or overtime compensation.  They listed various parts
of the FLSA with which they claimed the DOC did not comply, but
they failed to list any specific state laws with which the DOC did
not comply.

After the DOC removed the case to federal court, and after that
court denied Employees' motion to remand, the district court
concluded that the DOC was entitled to sovereign immunity on the
FLSA claims.  That court also held that all of Employees' state law
claims arose out of violations of the FLSA and were thus
preempted.

The Employees then filed a motion to amend their complaint without
attaching a new complaint or explaining what facts they would add
in an amended complaint.  The district court denied the motion to
amend because the employees did not show how an amendment would
change the conclusion that the FLSA preempted their claims.

The Employees timely appealed.  They contend that their state law
claims are not preempted by the FLSA.  They also assert that the
district court erred in dismissing their claims with prejudice and
denying them leave to amend.

The issue presented in the Court is one of first impression in the
circuit: Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act preempts redundant
state law tort claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation when the state's law does not provide for minimum
wages and overtime compensation.

The Fifth Circuit opines that because all of the Employees' state
law claims are based on violations of the FLSA, they are preempted.
It finds that every one of the Employees' claims relates to unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation.  Furthermore, even if the
claims do not refer to the FLSA, they are based on the FLSA.
Mississippi does not have laws governing minimum wages and
overtime.  Courts therefore analyze these types of claims under the
FLSA only.  The Fifth Circuit concludes that the FLSA preempts
redundant state law claims for nonpayment of minimum wages and
overtime compensation by way of conflict preemption.

The Fifth Circuit turns to the Employees' assertions that their
complaint should not have been dismissed with prejudice and that
they should have been allowed leave to amend.  They first contend
that their state law claims that do not contain a reference to the
FLSA should not have been dismissed with prejudice.  But,
Mississippi does not have state labor laws governing minimum wage
or overtime,61 so it would be impossible for Employees to state a
claim for wage and hour violations under state law independent of
the FLSA.  Furthermore, it would be impossible for Employees to
state a claim under the FLSA because sovereign immunity bars suit
against the DOC.  Their state law claims based on violations of the
FLSA similarly fail because of preemption.  The Fifth Circuit
therefore holds that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

The Employees next contend that they should have been allowed leave
to amend.  The Fifth Circuit reviews the district court's denial of
leave to amend for abuse of discretion.  It finds that the
Employees provided no reasons to the district court for why they
sought to amend their complaint.  On appeal, they contend that they
should be allowed to allege failure to supervise, manage, and
implement policies consistent with the FLSA.  They again cite
Washington, insisting that they should be allowed to allege their
state law conversion claim based on failure to remit federal or
state withholding taxes to the government.

The Fifth Circuit does not consider assertions that were not raised
in the district court.  Furthermore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because all of the
Employees' state law claims were based on violations of the FLSA
which, as discussed, preempts the redundant state law claims.  The
Employees did not present any additional facts that they would add
to an amended complaint and did not attach a proposed amended
complaint.  Finally, granting leave to amend would have been
futile, because the complaint as amended would be subject to
dismissal on the basis of preemption and sovereign immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirms all the
dispositions of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/75s34w5j from Leagle.com.


MULTIPLAN CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Multiplan Corporation F/K/A Churchill Capital Corp.
III ("Multiplan Corp") (NYSE: MPLN) between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. To get more
information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/multiplan-corporation-f-k-a-churchill-capital-corp-iii-loss-information-form?prid=13641&wire=5

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of
dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by
one of MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which
threatened up to 35% of the Company's sales and 80% of its levered
cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters
leading up to the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer
behaviors as represented, but rather due to a fundamental
deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased
competition, as payors developed competing services and sought
alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (c)
MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services
and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead
up to the Merger by insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction
with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced
billing practices, causing the Company's to cut its take rate by up
to half in some cases; (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, MultiPlan
was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines,
increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following
the Merger; (e) as a result of (a)-(d) above, MultiPlan was forced
to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its competitive
positioning through pricey acquisitions, including through the
purchase of HST for $140 million at a premium price from a former
MultiPlan executive only one month after the Merger; and (f) as a
result of (a)-(e) above, Churchill III investors had grossly
overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and
MultiPlan's business was worth far less than represented to
investors.

If you suffered a loss in Multiplan Corp you have until April 26,
2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

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

NABORS DRILLING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnett Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE BARNETT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NABORS DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.;
NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00195-SMV-GJF (D.N.M., Mar. 4, 2021)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Barnett was employed by the Defendants as electrical
specialist.

Nabors Drilling USA, LP operates as a oil and gas land-drilling
contractor. The Company offers equipment manufacturing,
stimulation, coiled tubing, instrumentation, optimization software,
and directional drilling services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
          MCDONALD WORLEY, PC
          1770 St. James St., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 523-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
          E-mail: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
                  matt@mcdonaldworley.com



NEWGH LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newgh, LLC. The case
is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Newgh, LLC d/b/a Gracioushome.com,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01336 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Gracious Home LLC -- https://gracioushome.com/ -- was founded in
2010. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
home-furnishings such as china, glassware, and metalware for
kitchen and table use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVA HOME: Seeks to Postpone Conditional Cert. Briefing Date
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA and
YEMILIYA MAZUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES,
INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA NOVIKAVA, Case No.
3:20-cv-01612-MPS (D. Conn.), the Defendants Southern Home Care
Services, Inc. and Yuliya Novikava, jointly move the Court for an
Order postponing the briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification pending a scheduling conference with
the Court.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on February 19, 2021. However, as
stated in the parties' Joint Preliminary Planning Report (JPPR),
the Plaintiffs and Defendants are unable to agree on the
appropriate discovery and briefing schedule related to the
Plaintiffs' Motion.

The Defendants request discovery on issues related to
certification; the Plaintiffs want conditional certification to be
decided without discovery. As such, the parties have requested a
scheduling conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 to address
these scheduling issues. This extension of time is necessary so the
Court may resolve the disputed issue raised in the JPPR. Pursuant
to Local Rule 7(b)(2), the Defendants are required to respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion within 21 days, or on or before March 12, 2021.


Nova Home is a provider of home health care in Farmington Hills,
Michigan. Southern Home provides health care services.

A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated March 4, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqbHEa at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants Southern Home Care Services, Inc. and Yuliya
Novikava are represented by:

          Jenny DeFrancisco, Esq.
          Ronald G. Polly, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew A. Boyd, Esq.
          Christine A. Kurke, Esq.
          HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP
          600 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022-7678
          Telephone: (212) 897-9659
          E-mail: jdefrancisco@hpylaw.com
                  rpolly@hpylaw.com
                  mboyd@hpylaw.com
                  ckurke@hpylaw.com

NUTANIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until the reset deadline of March 22, 2021 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Nutanix, Inc. (NasdaqGS: NTNX), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 1, 2018 and May 30, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Nutanix and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ntnx/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by March 22, 2021.

                          About the Lawsuit

Nutanix and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On February 28, 2019, the Company disclosed its 2Q2019 financial
results and 3Q guidance below analysts' expectations due to
"inadequate marketing spend for pipeline generation and slower than
expected sales hiring," which contradicted the Company's prior
statements that it was investing heavily in growth and was
increasing sales and marketing activities while maintaining high
profit margins. Then, on May 30, 2019, post-market, the Company
announced its financial results for 3Q2019, again disclosing that
the Company had failed to meet its revenue targets, despite its
prior representations otherwise.

On this news, the price of Nutanix's shares dropped 14.1%, from a
closing price of $32.67 per share on May 30, 2019 to $28.07 per
share on May 31, 2019, on exceptionally heavy trading volume of
almost 22 million shares.

The case is In re Nutanix, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
3:19-cv-01651.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

NUTANIX INC: Parties Agree to Modify Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE NUTANIX, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01651-WHO (N.D. Calif.), the parties stipulated
and agreed to modify class certification deadlines and case
management conference as follows:

   1. Within 10 days of the Court's order appointing a new lead
      plaintiff, the lead plaintiff(s) and Defendants shall
      confer and submit to the Court for approval a proposed
      schedule, including, if appropriate, a schedule for the
      filing of a Motion for Class Certification and a briefing
      schedule for that motion;

   2. Likewise, the deadline for filing a Case Management
      Statement is continued accordingly.

   3. The CMC scheduled for May 4, 2021 is vacated pending the
      appointment of a lead Plaintiff.

Nutanix is an American cloud computing company that sells
hyper-converged infrastructure software, cloud services, and
software-defined storage.

A copy of the Parties motion dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38J39i0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants Nutanix, Inc., Dheeraj Pandey, and
Duston M. Williams are:

          Nina F. Locker, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          Evan L. Seite, Esq.
          Laura G. Amadon, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com
                  eseite@wsgr.com
                  lamadon@wsgr.com

NUTANIX INC: Stipulation to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE NUTANIX, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01651-WHO (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge William H.
Orrick entered an order granting the Parties stipulation to modify
class certification deadlines and case management conference as
follows:

   1. Within 10 days of the Court's order appointing a new lead
      plaintiff, the lead plaintiff(s) and Defendants shall
      confer and submit to the Court for approval a proposed
      schedule, including, if appropriate, a schedule for the
      filing of a Motion for Class Certification and a briefing
      schedule for that motion;

   2. Likewise, the deadline for filing a Case Management
      Statement is continued accordingly.

   3. The CMC scheduled for May 4, 2021 is vacated pending the
      appointment of a lead Plaintiff.

Nutanix is an American cloud computing company that sells
hyper-converged infrastructure software, cloud services, and
software-defined storage.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OUwH5gat no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants Nutanix, Inc., Dheeraj Pandey, and
Duston M. Williams are:

          Nina F. Locker, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          Evan L. Seite, Esq.
          Laura G. Amadon, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com
                  eseite@wsgr.com
                  lamadon@wsgr.com


NUTANIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/nutanix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13633&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
Class Period: March 1, 2018 - May 30, 2019

Allegations against NTNX include that: Nutanix had materially
overstated its customer base and sales productivity, and that such
overstatements would eventually cause the Company's stock price to
drop dramatically.

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

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

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

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL: Deadline for Class Status Bid Set for April 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHARINA A. SNYDER, et
al., v. OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Case No.
5:20-cv-00178-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge entered an second
amended case management plan and trial order:

   Deadline for Completing                April 12, 2021
   Rule 23 Discovery:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to             Passed
   Identify Expert(s) and
   Provide Reports Regarding
   Class Certification Issues:

   Deadline for Completing                Passed
   Depositions of Plaintiffs'
   Class Experts:

   Deadline for the Defendant to          Passed
   Identify Expert(s) and Provide
   Reports Regarding Class
   Certification Issues:

   Deadline for Completing                Passed
   Depositions of Defendant's
   Class Experts:

   Deadline for Plaintiff's               April 26, 2021
   Motion for Class Certification:

   Deadline for the Defendant's           May 26, 2021
   Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class
   Certification Motion:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs'               June 14, 2021
   Reply Brief:

   Hearing regarding Class                July 6, 2021
   Certification Issues:

   Deadline for Completing Non-Expert     July 28, 2021
   Discovery:

   Deadline for Party(ies) with           June 25, 2021
   Burden of Proof to Identify
   Experts(s) and Provide Reports
   in Compliance with Civil
   Rule 26(a)(2):

   Deadline to Identify Rebuttal          July 26, 2021
   Experts(s) and Provide Reports
   in Compliance with
   Civil Rule 26(a)(2):

   Deadline for Completing                August 12, 2021
   Expert Discovery:

   Deadline for Filing Dispositive        August 24, 2021
   Motions:

   Deadline for Filing Opposition         Sept. 21, 2021
   to Dispositive Motions:

   Deadline for Filing Replies            Oct. 5, 2021
   to Responses:

Ohio EPA is the administrative department of the Ohio state
government responsible for protecting the environment.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30FijQQ at no extra charge.[CC]

ONESPAN INC: Continues to Defend Almendariz Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OneSpan Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit entitled, Almendariz v.
OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.).

A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and
certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged
material misstatements and omissions.

The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.). Specifically, the plaintiff in the
Securities Class Action alleges, among other things, that certain
statements about OneSpan's business were misleading because of
defendants' failure to disclose that OneSpan purportedly had
inadequate internal procedures and controls over financial
reporting and related disclosures; and OneSpan purportedly
downplayed the negative impacts of immaterial errors in its
financial statements.

A complaint, related in subject matter to the Securities Class
Action, was filed on October 23, 2020 against certain of OneSpan's
officers and directors, and names OneSpan as a nominal defendant.

The case is captioned Klein v. Boroditzky, et al., No.
1:20-cv-06310 (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control and corporate waste, as well as a claim for contribution
under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, based on the same
alleged wrongdoing pled in the Securities Class Action.

OneSpan said, "We intend to defend against the Litigation
vigorously."

OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity,
security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate
electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.

PATENAUDE & FELIX: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Avina Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE ESCAMILLA AVINA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC;
CREDIT CORP. SOLUTIONS, INC.; THOMAS FLYNN, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00166-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss
        filed by the Entity Defendants; and

   (ii) denied the Motion to Dismiss filed by Individual
        Defendant Flynn.

Plaintiff Avina commenced the action on Jan. 24, 2020.  He filed
the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 14, 2020.

The action stems from the Plaintiff's alleged default on a consumer
credit card account in 2016.  The original creditor, Synchrony
Bank, assigned the debt to Defendant Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc.
("CCS").  CCS retained Defendant Patenaude & Felix, APC ("P&F"),
which then filed a debt collection lawsuit in state court on June
11, 2019.  P&F hired Defendant Flynn as a private process server to
serve the summons and complaint on the Plaintiff.

On July 12, 2019, Flynn filed a proof of service with the state
court representing that on July 1, 2019, Flynn completed personal
service upon Plaintiff at his residence.  However, the Plaintiff
states that he was not home at this time and therefore could not
have been personally served.  Consequently, he filed a motion to
quash service and attached a timecard showing that he was working
at the time of the alleged personal service.

In response, the Entity Defendants sent Flynn to re-serve the
summons and complaint; he again filed a proof of service indicating
that he personally served Plaintiff at his residence on Nov. 9,
2019, mooting the motion to quash.  Again, however, he alleges he
was not home at this time and claims that his mother "found CCS'
lawsuit lying on the front porch."  The Plaintiff filed a second
motion to quash, which was again mooted by the Defendants' request
to dismiss the action without prejudice on Jan. 2, 2020.

The Plaintiff states that Flynn's filing of false proofs of service
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692, et seq.  Specifically, he claims that Flynn's
actions: (1) constitute conduct the natural consequence of which is
to harass the debtor in connection with the collection of a debt
(15 U.S.C. Section 1692d); (2) falsely represent the legal status
of the debt and use false representations and deceptive means in an
attempt to collect a debt (id. Section 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10)); and
(3) use unfair and unconscionable means in an attempt to collect a
debt (id. Section 1692f).

In addition, the Plaintiff states that CCS and P&F are vicariously
liable for Flynn's violations because they knew or should have
known that Flynn regularly conducts "sewer service" on the
Plaintiffs yet continue to use him to serve CCS's debt collection
lawsuits and that their compensation arrangement with Flynn
incentivizes his dishonest conduct.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a class of
all persons: (1) residing in California; (2) against whom
Defendants "jointly filed proofs of `personal service' of process
in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California
in debt collection lawsuits in which the person was not personally
served with process"; and (3) in an attempt to collect personal,
family, or household debts from Jan. 24, 2019 to the date of class
certification.

The Entity Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Flynn's Motion to
Dismiss make several overlapping arguments to support dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  First, as
threshold issues, they claim the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
an FDCPA claim and that the litigation privilege applies to
preclude this action.  Second, Defendant Flynn alleges that he
falls under an FDCPA exemption for process servers and therefore
does not meet the definition of a "debt collector."
Correspondingly, the Entity Defendants argue that they cannot be
held directly or vicarious liable for Flynn's actions. Lastly, the
Entity Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
stated violations of the FDCPA and all the Defendants dispute that
he has adequately stated class claims.

When evaluating a claim of harm, the Ninth Circuit has instructed
that courts must ask: "(1) whether the statutory provisions at
issue were established to protect [a plaintiff's] concrete
interests (as opposed to purely procedural rights), and if so, (2)
whether the specific procedural violations alleged in this case
actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such
interests."

Regarding the first prong of the analysis, Judge Bashant turns to
the purpose of the FDCPA and the specific subsections cited by the
Plaintiff.  She finds it clear that the text of the relevant FDCPA
provisions further the statute's stated purpose by protecting a
consumer's substantive right to be free from specific abusive debt
collection practices, including conduct that is "harassing,
oppressive, or abusive," "false, deceptive, or misleading," or
"unfair or unconscionable."  Thus, the FDCPA codifies the
Plaintiff's concrete interest in being free from abusive debt
collection practices, and the statutory provisions at issue were
specifically established to protect that concrete interest.

The question under the second prong of the analysis is whether the
filing of allegedly fraudulent proofs of service in the state debt
collection action caused harm, or created a material risk of harm,
to the Plaintiff's aforementioned concrete interests under the
FDCPA.

The Judge finds that it did.  Taking the Plaintiff's allegations
regarding the filing of fraudulent proofs of service as true, she
holds that this presented a material risk to the Plaintiff's
ability to properly engage in his own defense in the state debt
collection action.  This falls squarely within the statutory
protection afforded by the FDCPA.  The fact that the Entity
Defendants ultimately dismissed the underlying state collection
lawsuit against the Plaintiff is of no import.  Because the
Plaintiff alleges FDCPA violations that presented a real risk of
harm to the concrete interests established by the statute, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has standing to bring the instant
action and rejects the Defendants' arguments to the contrary.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff's claims must fail
because the Defendants' actions are protected by California's
litigation privilege.  Under California law, publications made in
the discharge of an official judicial duty are privileged and
cannot be the basis for the imposition of legal liability.  The
litigation privilege applies to any communication (1) made in
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other
participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the
litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation
to the action.

However, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the
Judge holds that the California litigation privilege does not apply
to federal causes of action, including FDCPA claims.  The
Defendants offer no counterargument.  Accordingly, the Judge finds
that this argument fails as a matter of law.

Regarding the sufficiency of the allegation, to establish a
violation of the FDCPA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) plaintiff
is a consumer; (2) plaintiff has been the object of collection
activity arising from a consumer "debt" within the meaning of the
FDCPA; (3) defendant is a 'debt collector' as defined by the FDCPA;
and (4) defendant has engaged in an act or omission in violation of
the prohibitions or requirements of the FDCPA.

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is a consumer and was the
object of collection activity arising from a consumer debt.
However, the Defendants make several arguments as to why the latter
two factors are not met.

The Judge denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss the FDCPA
claims on the basis that the facts, as alleged, do not amount to
FDCPA violations.  She rejects the Defendants' contention that
because the alleged service does not involve "violence or threat of
violence, obscene language, or any of the examples of prohibited
conduct enumerated" in the statute, it cannot state a claim for an
FDCPA violation.  Each subsection of the statute at issue expressly
prefaces the list of enumerated conduct by stating that it does not
"limit the general application of the foregoing," thus establishing
that the conduct listed is not exhaustive.  As to the contention
that the Plaintiff's claims must fail because of the presumption of
valid service, this argument is premature.  The Judge holds that
notwithstanding the presumption, the Plaintiff's claim is enough to
meet the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.

The Judge also rejects Defendant Flynn' argument that he cannot be
held directly liable because he is "solely a process server" and
therefore falls within the FDCPA's process server exemption.
Because she must presume the truth of the Plaintiff's claims at
this stage, the Judge finds that the factual allegations regarding
Flynn's actions sufficiently state abusive conduct that remove him
from the ambit of the process server exemption.

The Entity Defendants make several independent arguments about
their liability as debt collectors that, directly and indirectly,
retained Flynn's services to complete service on the Plaintiff.
First, the Entity Defendants contend that even assuming the FAC
states a claim for Flynn's liability under the statute, such
liability does not extend "beyond the process server and the
attorney service entity" to the current owner of the debt (CCS) or
the attorneys retained by CCS to recover the debt (P&F).

Even taking these allegations as true as required on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, however, does not allow the Court to draw a
reasonable inference that CCS or P&F exercised control over the
specific actions taken by Flynn to give rise to the FDCPA
violations in the case.  The Judge says the mere act of hiring
Flynn as a process server to carry out service of lawsuits is not
sufficient to establish agency.  The Entity Defendants' willful
disregard of the conduct of an individual who was authorized to
execute an action on their behalf may reflect their negligence and
even indifference, but it does not adequately allege that they
exerted control over Flynn's conduct such that they may be held
vicariously liable, as principals, for their agent's decision to
allegedly manufacture and file fraudulent proofs of service.

The Judge, therefore, grants the Entity Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's vicarious liability claims under the FDCPA
as to CCS and P&F.  Because the Plaintiff states no other basis to
hold the Entity Defendants liable, the Judge dismisses the
Plaintiff's claims against CCS and P&F without prejudice.

The Entity Defendants also separately challenge the sufficiency of
the Plaintiff's claim that their conduct has caused him "to suffer
anxiety and emotional distress."  Citing to California cases
concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"),
they argue that the Plaintiff's allegations of emotional distress
are not of the "substantial or enduring quality" necessary to
sufficiently state a claim.

The Judge agrees with the widely adopted approach to emotional
distress under the FDCPA in the circuit.  Thus, to the extent the
Entity Defendants challenge the Plaintiff's emotional distress
claim on the basis that he does not satisfy the state requirements
for IIED, this argument fails.  Again, the Court need only
determine at this stage whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer
evidence in support of the claim.  The Plaintiff could offer
evidence to support that he did, in fact, suffer actual emotional
distress in the aftermath of Flynn's fraudulent service and the
commencement of a state court proceeding against him.  Any
consideration of "the actual quantum and quality" of this proof in
supporting liability is an inquiry reserved for summary judgment.

Finally, the Defendants also dispute class allegations on the basis
that the class definition, among other things, is vague, overbroad,
and not ascertainable.  In essence, they argue that the class
definition proposed by the Plaintiff encompasses even those who
were served by other means or waived service, who appeared in their
state collection lawsuits, and who were not subject to default
judgments.  They therefore contend that the issues presented are
not "capable of classwide resolution" as no single adjudication
could determine liability and craft a remedy applicable to all the
class members.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that these arguments are
premature.  The Defendants do not cite to any authority allowing
the use of Rule 12 motions to contest the suitability of class
claims.  The Defendants' challenges to the Plaintiff's class claims
are not appropriately resolved on the instant Motions.  These
inquiries are reserved for determination if and when the Plaintiff
moves for certification of the putative class.  The Judge therefore
denies the Defendants' Motions as to the Plaintiff's class claims.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bashant granted in part and denied in
part the Entity Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  She denied the
Entity Defendants' Motion as to the Plaintiff's lack of standing,
the applicability of litigation privilege, and the insufficiency of
the Plaintiff's class claims and emotional distress claim.
However, the Judge granted the Defendants' Motion on the basis that
the Plaintiff does not sufficiently state vicarious liability
against either CCS or P&F.  Thus, the claims against CCS and P&F
are dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiff will have until
April 7, 2021 to file an amended complaint to address the pleading
deficiencies noted in the Order or, alternatively, to voluntarily
dismiss the Entity Defendants.

The Judge denied Defendant Flynn's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ewvxv42 from Leagle.com.


PENUMBRA INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Penumbra, Inc. (PEN)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 12/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit https://neighborwebsj.com/
[GN]

PENUMBRA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13633&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
Class Period: August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020

Allegations against PEN include that: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex
had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use;
(2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7
Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact
already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be
recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's
public statements as set forth above were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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

PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Plug Power Inc.
(NASDAQ:PLUG). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased PLUG stock or other securities between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower to submit their information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.

The case alleges that Plug Power and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
Plug Power would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; and (2) Plug Power was reasonably likely to report
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting.

Interested Plug Power investors have until May 7, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

CONTACT:

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

PLUM PBC: Mathiesen Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plum, PBC. The case
is styled as Vanessa Mathiesen, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Plum, PBC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01763-KAW
(N.D. Cal., March 12, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Plum, PBC -- https://www.plumorganics.com/ -- is home to Plum
Organics, a values-driven company committed to nourishing the next
generation with great tasting, nutritious food from high chair to
lunchbox.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-5803
          Phone: (212) 899-1761
          Email: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com


PONZIOS RD: Bid to Certify Final Collective Action in Casco Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PONZIOS RD, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-2084 (RBK/JS) (D.N.J.), Judge Robert B.
Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
entered an Opinion:

   a. granting Casco's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under
      the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law;

   b. granting Casco's Motion for Final Collective Action
      Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act;
      and

   c. denying Casco's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to
      Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts.

The employment dispute concerns whether Defendant Ponzio RD, doing
business as Metro Diner, could pay its "tipped employees," like
bussers and servers, less than the minimum wage by using a "tip
credit" under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").

Defendant Metro Diner employed Lead Plaintiff Oscar Casco as a
busser and Opt-In Plaintiff Tina Blemings as a server in its New
Jersey location in Brooklawn, New Jersey.  Casco worked for the
Defendant for approximately six months beginning in May 2014 and
earned $3.50 per hour plus tips.  Blemings, by contrast, worked for
Defendant for about four years beginning in May 2011 and earned
$2.15 per hour plus tips.  Metro Diner considered waitresses,
waiters, and buys boy as tipped employees and would credit as wages
to these employees the difference between the minimum wage and
their hourly wage.

At the end of each shift, waiters and waitresses were required to
report their total tips -- both cash and credit card tips -- by
entering the amount into a point of sale system before clocking
out.  After clocking out, a report was generated which the
waitresses and waiters would then take to the cashier in order to
receive cash for their credit card tips.  Included on this report
was the credit card tips earned by the waiters or waitresses along
with the gross sales they made for that day.  A certain percentage
of the waiter or waitresses' gross sales was deducted and
distributed to the bus boys as tips.  At one point, the waiters and
waitresses were distributing the tips to the bus boys directly.
However, this practice changed and now management distributes the
tips to the bus boys.

Because waiters and waitresses often allegedly failed to report
their cash tips, the Defendant assumed they received sufficient
gratuities to meet the minimum wage requirement by recording as
such on payroll.

Metro Diner also provided its employees with meal credits which
allowed them to "order anything they want up to $8 and -- they can
order filet mignon, if they want, but they would get an $8 credit
and have to pay the difference."  A prorated meal credit of up to
$10 for 40 hours worked would be applied to the gross weekly pay of
the each tipped employee.  Mr. Fakouras explained that the meal
credit is based on the retail cost of the food -- that is, the
price listed on the menu -- as opposed to the actual cost to Metro
Diner.

On April 14, 2016, Casco brought the action (which Blemings
subsequently joined) on behalf of a nationwide collective class
action under the FLSA.  Casco also brought a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of himself and a New
Jersey class of tipped employees.

The Complaint contains five counts: (1) FLSA minimum wage
violations (Count One); (2) FLSA overtime wage violations (Count
Two); (3) New Jersey minimum wage violations (Count Three); (4) New
Jersey overtime violations (Count Four); and (5) a New Jersey
common law unjust enrichment claim (Count Five).  In answering the
Complaint, the Defendant denied, among other things, that it failed
to pay its tipped employees less than the minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs sought summary judgment under the FLSA and NJWHL as
to the defense that the Defendant complied with the legal
notification requirements to pay its tipped employees less than the
minimum wage by claiming a tip credit.  In the Court's prior
opinion, it held that the Defendant failed to meet the notification
requirement to take a tip credit under the FLSA and therefore found
Defendant liable for the full minimum wage.  It granted summary
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs solely on that issue.  It
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law claim because it was unclear, given the
lack of briefing, whether the FLSA and NJWHL paralleled each other
to such an extent that a ruling under one was dispositive of a
ruling under the other.

The Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law claim.  They also filed a motion for final
collective action pursuant to 216(b) of the FLSA and motion to
strike the Defendant's response to their statement of material
facts.

Motion to Strike

As a threshold matter, Judge Kugler must resolve the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Strike because its outcome determines whether the
Plaintiffs' statement of material facts is deemed admitted for
purposes of the motion.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendant's response to its current statement of material facts
must be stricken because the Court previously ruled that the
Plaintiffs' statement of material facts were deemed admitted and
the same statement of material facts has been attached to this
motion.  The Defendant argues the plain text of Local Civil Rule
56.1 undermines the Plaintiff's contention because it only requires
undisputed facts to be deemed admitted for purposes of "the"
summary judgment motion then before the Court.

In the current context, the plain text of the rule does not aid
either party, teh Judge opines.  He holds that the current motion
for partial summary judgment could equally be construed as a
renewed motion or a second and distinct motion.  As a renewed
motion, it may still constitute "the" summary judgment motion, but
as a second motion, it would not.  In any event, the Judge need not
reach this issue because a "court may excuse the failure to submit
a Rule 56.1 statement where there is no evidence of bad faith" or
where the interests of justice so require.  Because there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the Defendant, the Judge
exercises his discretion to proceed to the merits of the motion.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

New Jersey Wage and Hour Law Tip Credit

The Plaintiffs seek a grant of summary judgment on the issue that
the Defendant failed to comply with the minimum wage requirements
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  Specifically, that the
Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set forth in New
Jersey's Administrative Code that permit employers to take tip
credits and meal credits for employees that receive gratuities.
The Plaintiffs argue the Defendant violated N.J.A.C. 12:56-14.4
because it did not comply with N.J.A.C. 12:56-8.3.

The Defendant raises multiple arguments in response.  First, it
argues there is a genuine dispute of material fact precluding the
grant of summary judgment because the diner owners testified that
each shift, employees did in fact receive the requisite gratuities
to satisfy the minimum wage requirement.  Second, it contends there
is a genuine dispute of material fact because there are numerous
instances where management did rely on statements furnished by
waiters and waitresses to determine the gratuities actually
received.  Third, the Defendant argues that the Tip Credit notice
provided to and signed by employees upon being hired constitutes an
agreement under N.J.A.C. 12:56-8.4(a) and therefore it did not
violate N.J.A.C. 12:56-14.4.

The Judge holds that the Defendant's first argument to the contrary
misses the point.  By the plain text of the regulation, compliance
with N.J.A.C. 12:56-14.4 is conditioned, in part, on compliance
with N.J.A.C. 12:56-8. T herefore, because there is no genuine
dispute that the Defendant failed to comply with N.J.A.C. 12:56-8,
it could not have complied with N.J.A.C. 12:56-14.4.

The Judge agrees with the Defendant's second argument and limited
his holding accordingly.  The Defendant's third argument, that the
Tip Credit notice form provided to and signed by employees
constitutes an agreement under N.J.A.C. 12:56-8.4(a), is
unconvincing because the form does not even list one of the
statutory methods for calculating gratuities.  Therefore, the
Defendant has failed to persuade the Court that it complied with
the requirements of N.J.A.C. 12:56-8.4(a).

Meal Credit

The Plaintiff contends the Defendant took an impermissible meal
credit because it credited the retail cost of the meals as wages to
its employees instead of the actual cost.  Notably, the Defendant
does not dispute this fact.  Rather, it simply argues that the meal
credit was reasonable.

The Judge opines that the Defendant's argument is unpersuasive and
nonsensical because it invents a standard that does not appear
anywhere in the plain text of New Jersey's administrative code.
Indeed, the Defendant concedes that "the meal credit as applied by
the Defendant was based on the retail cost of the meal (the price
listed on the menu) rather than the actual cost to Defendant for
the meal."  Thus, the meal credit that was applied toward
employees' wages was priced at a higher rate than what it actually
cost the Defendant.  This is in clear contravention of the
regulation and the Defendant's throw-away argument that the meal
credit was "reasonable" is simply unpersuasive.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff is also entitled to summary judgment on this issue as
well.

Motion for Final Collective Action

The Plaintiffs move for final collective certification under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) on Count I of the Complaint.  The Defendant
argues that the motion should be denied because it is a blatant
attempt to circumvent the rulings by the Honorable Joel Schneider,
U.S.M.J., who held that the Defendant is entitled to take discovery
as to NJWHL issues and is also entitled to take discovery directed
to the Plaintiffs' damages.

The Judge fails to see how granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the final collective action for its FLSA minimum
wage claim will have an impact on the discovery for the NJWHL and
damages issues.  Therefore, he considers whether the Plaintiffs'
have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Lead
Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs are "similarly situated."

Among other things, the Judge finds that the Named Plaintiff Casco
has made the requisite showing that other tipped employees are
"similarly situated" because Defendant Metro Diner failed to give
sufficient notice to its tipped employees that it used a tip credit
to satisfy the FLSA's minimum wage requirement.  That is, the
tipped employees were subjected to a common employer practice that
constitutes a violation of the FLSA. Consideration of the facts set
forth also confirms this conclusion.  All the Plaintiffs also
advance the same claim -- the Defendant failed to provide proper
notice that it used a tip credit to satisfy the FLSA's minimum wage
requirements and therefore took an improper tip credit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the final
collective action is granted.

An order follows the Court's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yj5ptsft from Leagle.com.


PREFFERED PHYSICIANS: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marc Irwin Sharfman, M.D., P.A. Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Preferred
Physicians Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 21-CA-001310 was
removed from the Hillsborough County Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00580 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Preferred Physicians (PPIA) -- http://ppia-malpractice.com/-- is a
full service brokerage firm offering solutions for all insurance
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ernest H. Kohlmyer , III, Esq.
          SHEPARD, SMITH, KOHLMYER & HAND, P.A.
          2300 Maitland Center Pkwy, Suite 100
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Phone: (407) 622-1772
          Fax: (407) 622-1884
          Email: skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com


PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Glenn FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KATIE E. GLENN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND SERVICES,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01036, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00313-WED to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Presbyterian Homes and Services is a privately-owned company that
maintains senior living facilities and offers senior care services,
headquartered in Hamline, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Drake Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Drake, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Proctor & Gamble Company, Case No.
2021L 000149 was removed from the Third Judicial Circuit Madison
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on March 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00279-RJD to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://ph.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
          2227 South State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 656-5150
          Fax: (618) 656-6230
          Email: kevin@ghalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott D. Bjorseth, Esq.
          David A. Schott, Esq.
          RYNEARSON, SUESS, ET AL
          107 Southpointe Drive
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 659-0588
          Email: sbjorseth@rssclaw.com
                 dschott@rssclaw.com


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Faces Greenfield Suit Over Insurance Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE GREENFIELD, JOHNNY TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE
CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE
NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through
10, Case No. A-21-829908-B (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., Feb. 23,
2021) seeks class-wide relief for Progressive's failure to provide
and charge a fair and appropriate insurance premium and to provide
premium reduction to its Nevada automobile insurance policyholders
amid the COVID-pandemic.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all Nevada residents who held automobile insurance
policies through Progressive as of March 1, 2020, and who have
thereafter continued to be Progressive automobile policyholders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the class, along
with everyone in this country, have faced substantial life changes
since March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including
reduced driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and
miles driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the
Plaintiffs and the class members' vehicles. Progressive has not
taken the appropriate action to reduce the Plaintiffs and the class
members' premiums to accurately reflect the decreased risk, the
suit adds.

Plaintiff Greenfield, is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a
current automobile insurance policyholder of Progressive. The
Plaintiff Trujillo, is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a
current automobile insurance policyholder of Progressive.

Progressive is an insurance company licensed to do business in
Nevada, and it sells automobile insurance to Nevada residents and
charges and collects premiums from those citizens. Collectively,
the Defendants are all part of the Progressive family of companies,
licensed in Nevada to sell automobile insurance policies within the
State of Nevada. The Defendants DOE 1 through 10 are insurance
companies that fall within the Progressive umbrella that provide
policies of automobile insurance to Nevada residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Tosses Bilog Class Claims w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACRISHA BILOG, an
individual, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01236-MCE-CKD (E.D. Calif.), the
Hon. Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with
      prejudice;

   2. The class, collective, and representative claims are
      dismissed without prejudice; and

   3. Each party is to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.

   4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

Progressive Casualty is an insurance company. The Company provides
personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and
health insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Q73HYF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff LaCrisha Bilog and the Putative
Class, are:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
are:

          Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: pebsworth@seyfarth.com

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Faces Howard Suit Over 40.84% Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN A. HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION f/k/a KENSINGTON CAPITAL
ACQUISITION CORP., and JAGDEEP SINGH, Case No. 1:21-cv-01004 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 23, 2021) asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act arising from the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions
regarding solid-state battery and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

The Plaintiff brings this this class action on behalf of himself
and numerous other individuals under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The putative class covers all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired QuantumScape securities between
December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the "Class Period").

QuantumScape went public via business combination with Kensington,
which closed on November 25, 2020 (the "Merger"), with QuantumScape
as the surviving public entity. Kensington was a special purpose
acquisition company that was formed for the purpose of effecting a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination. Though Kensington
was not limited to a particular industry or sector, it focused its
search for a target business in the automotive and
automotive-related sector.

On January 4, 2021 an article was published on Seeking Alpha
pointing to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
that make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid-state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
what would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. the
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the
Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery
power, battery life, and energy density were significantly
overstated, the suit says.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant loss and damages.

QuantumScape develops battery technology for electric vehicles and
other applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
          Alejandro E. Figueroa, Esq.
          Eric D. Coleman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 568-3056
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
                  alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
                  ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ghebrehiwet Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robel Ghebrehiwet, on behlaf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities LLC, Robinhood Markets Inc., each Delaware corporations,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00214, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District California on March 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01739-JCS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invest in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 954-4400
          Fax: (415) 954-4480
          Email: bwisoff@fbm.com
                 EMonekAnderson@fbm.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Thompson Securities Suit Goes to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAYLOR THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No.
21STCV04909, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on March 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02230 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act by making untrue
statements or omissions of material fact and using or employing
manipulative devices in connection with the purchase or sale of
covered securities.

Robinhood Financial LLC is an institutional brokerage company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Naeun Rim, Esq.
         Grace W. Kang, Esq.
         BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG
& RHOW, P.C.
         1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
         Telephone: (310) 201-2100
         Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
         E-mail: nrim@birdmarella.com
                 gkang@birdmarella.com

RUBIANO INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Mays FLSA Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH MAYS and ALESSANDRA MALMQUIST, Plaintiffs v.
RUBIANO, INC. and SHARON RUBIANO, Defendants, Cause No. 4:17-CV-48
DRL (N.D. Ind.), Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
        summary judgment motion; and

   (ii) denied as moot Ms. Mays' and Ms. Malmquist's motion for
        conditional certification of a class.

Plaintiffs Mays and Malmquist were "walk-in" exotic dancers at
Danzers, an adult entertainment club owned by Rubiano.  The
company's president, Sharon Rubiano, terminated these performers
for what they allege was protected activity under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  They both move for summary judgment on
their claims for unpaid wages and retaliation damages under FLSA.
Ms. Mays also moves for summary judgment on her claim under
Indiana's blacklisting statute.

Danzers provides adult entertainment and sells snack food, beer,
wine, and liquor purchased from wholesalers and retailers in
Indiana to customers at its Indiana location. Ms. Mays and Ms.
Malmquist were exotic dancers at Danzers.

Danzers has two classifications of exotic dancers: "walk-in"
dancers and employee dancers.  Dancers begin in the "walk-in"
classification, meaning they are not scheduled to work on specific
days, may work on any day they wish, and may work at other clubs.
When they work, they are expected to work six-hour shifts and
fulfill the same roles and follow the same rules as employee
dancers.  Danzers has traditionally considered walk-in dancers to
be independent contractors.  If an adult entertainer performs
satisfactorily as a "walk-in" dancer, they are usually offered the
opportunity to work as an employee on payroll.

Both Ms. Mays and Ms. Malmquist were classified as walk-in dancers.
Ms. Mays worked nine total days at Danzers between Jan. 17, 2017
through Feb. 17, 2017.  Ms. Malmquist worked 43 total days at
Danzers between July 18, 2016 until Feb. 17, 2017, though there was
a period when she didn't return to work for several months.

On Feb. 13, 2017, Ms. Rubiano received a letter from "Your
Anonymous Dancers" that discussed Ms. Rubiano's alleged
misclassification of dancers as independent contractors.  In the
letter, the anonymous dancers indicated that Ms. Rubiano
misclassified them to avoid either paying the dancers or allowing
the dancers to keep their own money. The letter accused Ms. Rubiano
of violating various state and federal laws regarding payment.  It
indicated that if Ms. Rubiano didn't change her ways, the dancers
would sue.  Nothing in the record indicates who authored this
letter.

During the month she worked as a walk-in dancer, Ms. Mays admitted
that she broke the club's rules, including chewing gum, drinking on
the job, and talking on her phone while on the floor after being
asked to stop.  Ms. Rubiano also accused her of being rude to
customers and staff and said she was involved in an incident when a
customer complained about her putting a belt around his neck.  Ms.
Mays knew breaking the club's rules could lead to her termination.

Prior to terminating Ms. Mays, Ms. Rubiano ran a background check
on her, which included calling other adult entertainment
establishments.  Ms. Rubiano also directed her grandson to research
Ms. Mays on Google, and he pulled up approximately 10 class action
lawsuits in which Ms. Mays had sued her former employers for
alleged violations of her rights.  These suits included among
others Mays v. Midnite Dreams, Inc., 915 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2018)
(FLSA claim) and Mays v. Grand Daddy's, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
91747 (W.D. Wis. July 15, 2015) (same).

Ms. Rubiano met with Ms. Mays thereafter and told her she had sued
lots of clubs in the past.  She told Ms. Mays to backtrack and
think about what she was doing because filing lawsuits was
dangerous and crazy.  She warned Ms. Mays about filing lawsuits
because there were people who would hurt people that file
lawsuits.

Ms. Rubiano met with Ms. Malmquist and told her that she was
interacting with the wrong person by talking with Ms. Mays.  Though
Ms. Malmquist told Ms. Rubiano she didn't know that Ms. Mays sued
clubs, Ms. Rubiano stated that Ms. Malmquist started talking to the
wrong person and would be fired for affiliating with Ms. Mays.  She
told Ms. Malmquist she could get hurt if she tried to sue the wrong
club, which she interpreted as a threat.  Ms. Malmquist says she
was terminated because she was seen talking to Ms. Mays and because
the company didn't want Ms. Malmquist to help Ms. Mays with a case.
Ms. Rubiano says she fired her for being on social media drinking
with a minor.

On June 7, 2017, several months after both dancers were terminated,
Ms. Mays and Ms. Malmquist sued Rubiano and Ms. Rubiano, alleging
wage violations under FLSA, retaliation, and blacklisting. They
also moved to conditionally certify a class action under FLSA.
Rubiano and Ms. Rubiano both oppose conditional certification and
move for summary judgment on all claims.  The Court held oral
argument after the case's recent reassignment to Judge Leichty.

Whether Dancers Can Recover Under FLSA

Judge Leichty opines that the dancers cannot recover under FLSA.
He says FLSA mandates "every employer to pay to each of his
employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,
wages" specified by statute.  "Commerce" is defined as "trade,
commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the
several States or between any State and any place outside thereof."
FLSA has two grounds for coverage: individual and enterprise.  If
neither is met, FLSA doesn't apply.

The Judge finds that the economic reality of Ms. Mays' and Ms.
Malmquist's working relationship with Rubiano made them employees
as opposed to independent contractors.  The short duration of the
working relationship also supports a finding of independent
contractor status.  Lastly, exotic dancers are the essential
ingredient for Danzers' business model, though the Judge won't
downplay the importance of alcohol and food in drawing certain
customers to the club.  In sum, though some factors weigh in favor
of independent contractor status, the economic reality of the
relationship in the case is one of employer-employee.  In making
this finding, the Judge joins a growing chorus of courts that have
concluded likewise.

Jude Leichty also opines that neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist
are individually covered under FLSA.  Individual coverage occurs
when an employee "engages in commerce or in the production of goods
for commerce."  There are two ways for individual coverage to
attach: The employee must either be "engaged in commerce" itself,
or she must engage "in the production of goods for commerce."  The
second method is characterized by activities such "as repairing and
maintaining interstate roads, railroads, and telephone lines," and
neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist argue this.  They instead say
their work falls under the first classification, satisfied by the
"regular and recurrent use of interstate telephone, telegraph,
mails, or travel."  They both rely on the internet streaming music
services provided by a DJ and jukebox at Danzers and social media
advertising by fellow employees to satisfy this standard, and Ms.
Mays additionally relies on her text messaging of clientele.

The Judge holds that streaming music over the internet can be use
of an instrumentality of interstate commerce.  That said, neither
Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist ever show that they utilized the
internet streaming services themselves, let alone that their use
was regular and recurrent.  The record only specifies that the DJ
streamed music online and that customers and employees generally
streamed music through the jukebox via an online app.  Because
neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist show that they individually
utilized an instrumentality of interstate commerce, individual
coverage doesn't attach.

In addition, neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist provide evidence
that they downloaded the operating app, chose the music, or
executed the streaming.  To find individual coverage on such an
attenuated showing would effectively bring every employee within
FLSA's purview, which the Supreme Court has cautioned against,
because almost every business today utilizes the internet in some
way.

Jude Leichty further opines that the Company isn't covered under
FLSA's enterprise coverage.  He holds that on the record, neither
Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist show that Rubiano is covered under
enterprise coverage.  Because neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Malmquist
are individually covered under FLSA, and because Rubiano is not
covered under enterprise coverage, the FLSA wage claims fail.  The
Judge enters summary judgment accordingly.

Summary Judgment Motion

First, the issue for Ms. Mays is whether the company retaliated
against her after Ms. Rubiano found out that Ms. Mays had sued
previous employers for FLSA violations while she was employed at
those institutions.  The parties cite no cases addressing this
issue of law -- whether a subsequent employer can retaliate for
protected activity that occurred with a former employer.  Hence,
the Judge denies the summary judgment motion on Ms. Mays'
retaliation claim.

Second, the issue for Ms. Malmquist is whether the company
retaliated against her within the meaning of FLSA when it
terminated her for its mistaken belief that she had engaged in
FLSA-protected activity, when in fact she hadn't.  The Judge again
looks at the statute's plain meaning.  Ms. Malmquist concedes that
she hadn't engaged in FLSA-protected activity, or that she was
about to engage in FLSA-protected activity, as outlined in the
statute when she was terminated.  Accordingly, her claim fails
under the plain meaning of the statute and the circuit's
requirement that a plaintiff engage in protected activity for there
to be retaliation.  Therefore, the Judge grants summary judgment
against Ms. Malmquist on her retaliation claim.

Third, Ms. Mays says Ms. Rubiano blacklisted her by calling other
entertainment clubs and telling them to not hire her.  The Judge
holds that her claim fails for two reasons.  First, she admitted
she had no evidence that Ms. Rubiano talked to any clubs about her
and said only that other clubs' responses suggested that Ms.
Rubiano had spoken with the clubs.  Her mere speculation won't
survive summary judgment.  Second, even if Ms. Rubiano had talked
to other clubs about her, there is no evidence that she said
anything false.  The jury would be invited merely to speculate.
Thus, the Judge grants summary judgment on Ms. Mays' blacklisting
claim.

The Performers' Motion for Conditional Certification

Ms. Mays and Ms. Malmquist move for conditional certification of a
class to recover unpaid wages under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The
Judge denies this motion as moot because he grants summary judgment
in favor of the Defendants on the FLSA claim.

Conclusion

Judge Leichty granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
summary judgment motion, leaving only Ms. Mays' retaliation claim
under FLSA against both Defendants for trial.  He denied as moot
Ms. Mays' and Ms. Malmquist's motion for conditional certification
of a class.  The Judge directed the Clerk to terminate Ms.
Malmquist as a plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43r9cj52 from Leagle.com.


SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Denial of Almaraz's Class Suit Bid Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE LUIS ALMARAZ, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2: 20-cv-2444 KJN P. (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's
request to bring a class action be denied.

The Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel,
with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Attached to his complaint is a request to bring the action as a
class action.

Magistrate Judge Newman holds that the Plaintiff is a non-lawyer
proceeding without counsel.  It is well established that a
layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class.
This rule becomes almost absolute when, as in the case, the
putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro
se.  In direct terms, the Plaintiff cannot fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The action, therefore, will
not be construed as a class action and instead will be construed as
an individual civil suit brought by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Newman orders the Clerk of the Court
to appoint a district judge to the action.  She recommends that the
Plaintiff's request to bring a class action be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S.
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).  Within 14 days after being served
with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file
written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties.
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations."  The Plaintiff is advised
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
the right to appeal the District Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9v9tx6rx from Leagle.com.


SCHELL & KAMPETER: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DAVID CLASSICK,
JR. Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a DIAMOND PET FOODS, and DIAMOND PET
FOODS INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02344-JAM-AC (E.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Mendez entered an order granting the parties second
stipulation regarding the briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and the related expert disclosures
as follows:

                                  Old Date         New Date

   Deadline to file Motion      April 23, 2021    June 22, 2021
   for Class Certification
   and serve Plaintiff's
   expert disclosures and
   reports:

   Fact discovery cut-off:      May 21, 2021      July 20, 2021

   Deadline for Plaintiff       June 7, 2021      Aug. 6, 2021
   to produce experts for
   deposition:

   Deadline to file opposition  July 20, 2021     Sept. 20, 2021
   to Motion for Class
   Certification and serve
   Defendant's expert
   disclosures and reports:

   Deadline for Defendants to   Aug. 17, 2021     Oct. 18, 2021
   produce experts for
   deposition:

   Deadline to file reply       Sept. 7, 2021     Nov. 8, 2021
   regarding Motion for
   Class Certification:

   Class Certification                           Jan. 11, 2022
   Hearing:

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30JPliG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph DePalmam, Esq.
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          Susana Cruz-Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, 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
                  kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          Steven D. Soden, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
                  ssoden@shb.com

SCOTT FRAKES: Gills Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GILLS, DUKHAN MUMIN,
v. SCOTT FRAKES, PETE RICKETS, Case No. 4:21-cv-03004-RGK-PRSE (D.
Neb.), the Plaintiffs and the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services (NDCS) Class and the Isolation Subclass they represent,
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as class action; and

   2. appointing class counsel.

      The NDCS Class is defined as all persons who are now, or
      will in the future be, subjected to the healthcare and
      safety policies and practices of NDCS.

      The Isolation Subclass is defined as all NDCS prisoners
      who are now, or will in the future be, subject to
      isolation. "Isolation" is defined as confinement in a cell
      for 22 or more hours per day.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30NVme8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Second Cir. Affirms Class Decertification in Jin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court and its July 10, 2019 Order
decertifying the class in the case, JIANMIN JIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. SHANGHAI ORIGINAL, INC., DBA JOE'S SHANGHAI,
EAST BROTHER CORP., DBA JOE'S SHANGHAI, ALWAYS GOOD BROTHERS, INC.,
DBA JOE'S SHANGHAI, SHANGHAI CITY CORP, DBA JOE'S SHANGHAI,
SHANGHAI DUPLICATE CORP, DBA JOE'S SHANGHAI, KIU SANG SI, AKA
JOSEPH SI, MIMI SI, YIU FAI FONG, TUN YEE LAM, SOLOMON C. LIOU,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3782 (2d Cir.).

Joe's Shanghai restaurant has three locations in New York City;
each is independently owned and managed.  Jin was a kitchen worker
at the Flushing, Queens location.

Jin and Chunyou Xie, who also worked at Joe's Shanghai in Flushing,
sued the corporate and individual owners of the restaurants
("Owners") on behalf of themselves and all current and former
non-managerial employees at all three locations.  They alleged
violations of the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), as well as the spread-of-hour requirements under the
NYLL.

The appeal concerns a narrow slice of the claims brought before the
district court: Only the Rule 23 class action on the NYLL claims as
to the employees at the Flushing location of Joe's Shanghai.  The
district court certified the class after finding it satisfied Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).   The district court appointed John Troy
and Troy Law, PPLC as the class counsel.

However, after the court certified the class, Troy Law's
representation of the class faltered.  To establish that the Owners
had a policy or practice of paying employees illegally low flat
rates, Jin and Xie needed evidence regarding employee hours and
wages.  In the joint pretrial order ("JPTO"), the class counsel
listed 73 witnesses who would testify at trial; most were labeled
"class plaintiffs."  The description of each witness' anticipated
testimony was the same.

The Owners explained in the JPTO that with one exception, "the cash
payroll records, timecard records and most notices of pay rate for
the period prior to November 2016 were lost and the Owners are not
able to produce them."  As a result, the class counsel should have
been aware that witness testimony on employee hours and wages would
be crucial to prove the Owners' liability.

Months later, the class counsel alleged that the Owners interfered
with the class formation process during the 60-day opt-out period
when the class members could exclude themselves from the class.
The class counsel noted in an affidavit that they received 27
opt-out forms -- attached as exhibits to the affidavit -- and
identified certain irregularities with the forms, which led the
counsel to allege that the Owners impermissibly contacted and
persuaded the class members to exclude themselves.  Accordingly,
the class counsel sought leave to file a sealed motion for
sanctions or to reopen discovery.

The magistrate judge reopened discovery for a limited amount of
time to allow the class counsel to conduct depositions of three
restaurant managers and 25 class members who opted out to
investigate the Owners' alleged interference.  During a status
conference on the last day of the discovery period, the class
counsel revealed they had conducted only a few depositions of the
managers, none of the employees, and stopped conducting the
remaining planned depositions more than a month before the deadline
without notifying the court.  The class counsel's motion for
sanctions was withdrawn and the case returned to Judge Ross for
trial.

The court scheduled the trial and directed the parties to submit
additional information, including revised witness lists with
detailed explanations of each witness's anticipated testimony.
However, the class counsel's revised witness list did not reflect
an understanding that witness testimony would be essential for
proving the class's claims.

Five days before the trial, the district court sua sponte
decertified the class.  The court stated that "while there have
been numerous red flags over the past few months, the 'significant
intervening event' triggering decertification is the counsel's
disclosure that he plans to call only two class members as
witnesses at trial."  Given the importance of testimony from the
employees to the class claim that the Owners had an illegal
flat-rate payment policy, the court concluded that by calling only
two relevant witnesses, the class counsel was not "fairly and
adequately representing the interests of the class, in violation of
Rule 23(g).  Furthermore, the court determined the prejudice to
class members from inadequate representation outweighed the
prejudice to the class members by decertifying the class so close
to trial.

Instead, the court held a bench trial on Jin's individual FLSA and
NYLL claims on the same date the class trial was scheduled to
start.  The district court entered judgment in Jin's favor, finding
three of the Owners liable for FLSA and NYLL violations and
awarding Jin a total of $35,880.30, including unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory notice damages, and
pre-judgment interest.  The court later granted attorney's fees and
costs.

On appeal, Jin challenges the decertification of the class.  Jin's
appeal of the decertification presents a curious preliminary
question.  His success on the merits of his individual claims --
the court awarded damages, attorney's fees, and costs -- could be
seen as mooting his interest in appealing the decertification of
the class.

The Appellate Court concludes that it has not.  It finds that the
underlying controversy in the case remains for the putative class
members.  The putative class members possess an adversarial
relationship with the Owners sufficient for a live controversy.
Jin's private attorney general interest also suffices for
jurisdiction.  Under the specific factual circumstances, Jin's
private attorney general interest suffices to establish his
personal stake in the appeal.

Jin also argues the district court abused its discretion in
decertifying the class because the "significant intervening event"
the court identified -- the counsel's plan to call only two class
members as witnesses -- did not justify decertification.  According
to Jin, his counsel's decision did not give cause for
decertification because the "decision to testify was entirely up to
the class members and to no degree under the control of the class
counsel.

The Appellate Court holds although an "intervening event" may often
be the impetus for a district court to sua sponte decide that the
requirements of Rule 23 are no longer met, the metric by which a
district court may properly decertify is not whether such an
"intervening event" crosses a threshold of "significance."
Instead, the district court need only find that a previously
satisfied requirement of Rule 23 is now lacking.

The Appellate Court finds that the district court acted within its
discretion in decertifying the class on the ground that class
counsel was no longer adequately representing the class.  Competent
representation by the class counsel is crucial to the prosecution
of a class action.  The class counsel was no longer fairly and
adequately representing the interests of the class.  The record is
replete with the counsel's shortcomings before the class was
decertified.

The risk of prejudice to the class members due to the class
counsel's inadequate representation also outweighed the risk of
prejudice due to decertifying the class just before trial.  Because
of the res judicata effect of class action judgments, the class
members would have potentially lost the chance to seek redress on
their claims in the future; decertification and subsequent notice
to the class preserved this right.

The Appellate Court concludes that the NYLL and other labor
protection laws are important public policies that benefit from
private enforcement through class actions.  When the counsel assume
the private attorney general role by acting as the class counsel,
they must take that role and their obligation to protect the class'
interests seriously.  For the reasons stated, it affirms the
judgment of the district court and its July 10, 2019 Order
decertifying the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yec3u2a6 from Leagle.com.

AARON B. SCHWEITZER -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- (John Troy --
johntroy@troypllc.com -- on the brief), Troy Law, PPLC, in
Flushing, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

DAVID B. HOROWITZ -- dh@fwatty.com -- Fong & Wong, P.C., in New
York City, for Defendants-Appellees.


SN SERVICING: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SN SERVICING
CORPORATION. The case is styled as Desiree Smith, James Furth,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as
a private attorney general v. SN SERVICING CORPORATION, an Alaska
Corporation, Case No. CGC21590105 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., March 12, 2021).

The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT."

SN Servicing Corporation (SNSC) -- - https://www.snsc.com/ --
delivers quick and flexible mortgage loan servicing solutions for
owners of loans and real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell Chyette, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MITCHELL CHYETTE
          125 12th Street, Suite 100-BALI
          Oakland, CA 94607-3699
          Phone: (510) 388-3748
          Fax: (510) 680-3760
          Email: mitch@chyettelaw.com



SOUDER MASONRY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Napoles Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcial Napoles, Isaac F. Nimer, Jorge Aballe, and other similarly
situated individuals v. Richard A. Souder Masonry, Inc., d/b/a
Souder Masonry And Concrete, Florida Green Concrete LLC, Calix
Green and Antwan Green, individually, Case No.
6:21-cv-00362-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Feb. 23, 2021) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated individuals and subjected all of them
to the same employment practices. The Defendants allegedly did not
pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals regular
and overtime wages.

While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs worked six days per
week, from Monday to Saturday the same schedule, from 7:00 AM to
5:00 PM. (10 hours daily), for a total of 57 hours weekly. The
Plaintiffs had deducted 30 minutes daily, or 3 hours weekly of
lunch break. Thus, Plaintiffs worked a minimum of 52 hours every
week, the suit says.

Plaintiffs Marcial Napoles, Isaac F. Nimer, and Jorge Aballe are
residents of Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Defendant is a general contractor. Individual Defendants Calix
Green and Antwan Green were and are now the
owners/partners/officers and managers of the Defendant Corporation
Florida Green Concrete. Defendants Souder Masonry and Florida Green
Concrete are joint employers of the Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

STATE FARM: Cranfield Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES CRANFIELD, etc.,
et al., v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
1:16-cv-01273-CAB (N.D. Ohio), Plaintiff Cranfield asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class to seek monetary damages:

      "All Defendant policyholders under any property policies
      issued by the Defendant who made: (1) a structural damage
      claim for property located in the State of Ohio; and (2)
      which resulted in an actual cash value payment from which
      "non-material depreciation" was withheld from the
      policyholder; or which should have resulted in an actual
      cash value payment but for the withholding of "non-
      material depreciation" causing the loss to drop below the
      applicable deductible;"

      a. In this definition, "non-material depreciation" means
         application of either the "depreciate removal,"
         "depreciate non-material" and/or "depreciate overhead
         and profit" option settings within Xactimate software;

      b. The class period for the proposed class is the maximum
         time period as allowed by applicable law;

      c. The class excludes all claims arising under policy
         forms expressly permitting the "depreciation" of
         "labor" within the text of the policy form and any
         claims in which the initial actual cash value payment
         exhausted the applicable limits of insurance; and

      d. Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons or
         entities that received payment from Defendant in the
         full amount of insurance shown on the declarations
         page; (2) Defendant and its affiliates, officers or
         directors; (3) members of the judiciary and their staff
         to whom this action is assigned; and (4) the
         Plaintiff's counsel;

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing Condominiums at Northpointe Association and
      Christina Ermidis as additional class representatives;

   4. appointing their counsel as counsel for the class.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was formed in 1935 to provide
property insurance for State Farm customers in the United States.
The product lines written by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
include homeowners, boat owners and many commercial lines.

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

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

           Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
           DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
           60 South Park Place
           Painesville, OH 44077
           Telephone: (440) 352-3391
           Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
           E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

                - and -

           James A. DeRoche, Esq.
           GARSON JOHNSON LLC
           2900 Detroit Avenue
           Van Roy Building 2nd Floor
           Cleveland, OH 44113
           Telephone: (216) 696-9330
           Facsimile: (216) 696-8558
           E-mail: jderoche@garson.com

                - and -

           R. Eric Kennedy, Esq.
           Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
           WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
           1600 Midland Building
           101 Prospect Ave., West
           Cleveland, OH 44113
           Telephone: (216) 781-1111
           Facsimile: (216) 781-6747
           E-mail: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
                    dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

                - and -

           Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
           MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON
           TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
           201 West Short Street, Suite 800
           Lexington, KY 40507
           Telephone: (859) 225-3731
           Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
           E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com
                   Stephen G. Whetstone

                - and -

           WHETSTONE LEGAL, LLC
           P.O. Box 6
           2 N. Main Street, Unit 2
           Thornville, Ohio 43076
           Telephone: (740) 974-7730
           Facsimile: (614) 829-307
           E-mail: steve@whetstonelegal.com

STRATEGIC BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Menendez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DELMI MENENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; ANDREW
MILLER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21CV377209 (Cal. Super., Sta. Clara Cty.) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Strategic Building Services Inc. is a commercial janitorial
services company founded in 2014 by a group of commercial cleaning
services experts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. D. Daily, Esq.
          Reed Aljian, Esq.
          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          DAILY ALJIAN LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5500
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949.861.2524
          Facsimile: 949.269.6364
          E-mail: jd@dallp.com
                  ra@dallp.com
                  sk@dallp.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Battery Drain Problems Cause Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Subaru battery drain lawsuit
alleges 2016-2020 Subaru Outback and 2019-2020 Subaru Ascent
vehicles are equipped with batteries that don't have enough
capacity to power the electrical systems when the vehicles are
turned off.

Multiple lawsuits were filed concerning the alleged Subaru battery
drain problems, including Dalen v. Subaru and Tomasian v. Subaru.

Those battery lawsuits were consolidated into a class action
titled, In re Subaru Battery Drain Products Liability Litigation.

The plaintiffs say Subaru owners must jump-start their drained
batteries and continue to charge the batteries to keep the vehicles
going. The lawsuit also alleges Subaru drivers can become stranded,
forced to find alternative transportation, purchase battery jumper
cables and pay for battery chargers.

The class action alleges even when Subaru replaces the batteries
under warranties, the replacement batteries also suffer from the
same battery drain problems.

The plaintiffs complain Subaru should have told them about the
alleged battery drain problems before the vehicles were sold. Those
plaintiffs claim Subaru knew in 2017 about the alleged defects but
concealed the information from consumers.

Subaru Files Motion to Dismiss the Battery Drain Lawsuit
In its motion to dismiss the class action, Subaru told the judge
that governing law requires the dismissal of the claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, or for failure to state a claim.

Subaru also reminded the judge four plaintiffs have voluntarily
dismissed their claims since the filing of the consolidated
lawsuit, including plaintiffs Tomasian and Dalen from the cases
mentioned above.

According to lawyers for Subaru, the battery drain lawsuit "is a
classic vague and inconsistent 'shotgun' pleading that 'assert[s]
multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying
which of defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or
which of the defendants the claim is brought against.'"

The judge was told the plaintiffs lack standing over claims for
Subaru models the plaintiffs never owned or lease, but can only
pursue claims related to the Subaru vehicles they own.

Subaru argues the plaintiffs cannot represent owners of other
vehicles equipped with different batteries, components and software
files which are alleged to be at the heart of the defect
allegations.

Additionally, Subaru alleges the plaintiffs do not have standing to
assert claims based on the marketing of products they did not
purchase.

The automaker also argues claims brought under New Jersey law by
non-New Jersey plaintiffs must be dismissed, and the judge should
also allegedly dismiss the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims based
on jurisdictional requirements.

According to Subaru, the law is clear:

"No claim shall be cognizable in a suit brought [in federal court]
. . . .  if the action is brought as a class action, and the number
of named plaintiffs is less than one hundred."

The judge was also told in the motion to dismiss that the battery
drain lawsuit alleges a breach of warranty based solely on alleged
design defects, but design defects are not covered under the new
vehicle limited warranty.

Subaru further told the judge multiple additional allegations must
be dismissed based on governing law, including implied warranty
claims which are allegedly time-barred and claims by certain
plaintiffs because they didn't give Subaru the opportunity to
repair the problems.

Subaru points to express warranty claims made by nine plaintiffs.
The automaker argues the battery drain class action doesn't allege
those plaintiffs presented their vehicles for repairs, a necessary
condition under the warranties.

Subaru also argues certain plaintiffs have no warranty claims
because they didn't provide Subaru with pre-lawsuit notice.

And finally, Subaru alleges in its motion that the plaintiffs
haven't adequately pleaded their fraud claims.

"Although the Consolidated Complaint refers to alleged
advertisements about general vehicle safety, TSBs, and Internet
postings, not a single Plaintiff identifies what specific
misrepresentations, or statements omitting material facts, if any,
he or she read, heard, saw, or reviewed, and when or where those
statements were made."

The Subaru battery drain class action lawsuit is being debated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is
titled, In re Subaru Battery Drain Products Liability Litigation.
[GN]

SUNBELT RENTALS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Carrillo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARRILLO v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV07178 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles  Cty., Feb. 23,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to
compensate for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages, and
failed to pay overtime in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that he started working for Sunbelt 15 years
ago. His last day worked was on August 3, 2020 and he was
terminated from his employment with Sunbelt a few days later. He
was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and earned $28.32
per hour. He generally worked 5 days a week (and sometimes 6 days
per week). His usual shift would be from between 2am-4am to 2pm-4pm
(or 9 even later). He and other similarly situated employees would
clock in and clock out on a phone application called "VDOS" and
"Workday".

He alleges that Sunbelt has violated numerous Labor Code Sections
against him and other similarly situated aggrieved employees. He
adds that Sunbelt did not provide him and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were
entitled for all work performed and did not compensate him and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code
sections 1194, 1197 and 1197. This is so because company policy and
standard dictated that he and others only be "on the clock" for
30-40 minutes before taking off on their routes, he asserts.

Sunbelt provides equipment rental solutions. The Company offers
aerial work platforms, ladders, air compressors, and
forklifts.[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
          E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

SUTTER HEALTH: Bid for Summary Judgment in Sidibe Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DJENEBA SIDIBE, et al., Plaintiffs v. SUTTER HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-04854-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beller of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division, grants in part and denies in
part Sutter's motion for summary judgment.

In the certified class action, the named Plaintiffs -- four persons
who paid for health insurance and two companies who paid for health
insurance for their employees -- challenge Sutter Health's
allegedly anticompetitive practices as (1) unlawful tying and an
unlawful course of conduct in violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act Section 1 and California's Cartwright Act (counts I and III),
(2) monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of the
Sherman Act Section 2 (counts IV and V), and (3) a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (count VI).

The Plaintiffs allege that through its contracts with health plans,
Sutter uses its market power for inpatient services in seven
Northern California markets (the Tying Markets, where it is the
only or dominant hospital) to force health plans in four other
geographic markets (the Tied Markets, where it faces competition
from other providers) to include (in their networks) Sutter's
inpatient services at hospitals in the Tied Markets, resulting in
higher prices.  The Plaintiffs challenge contract terms -- such as
high rates for out-of-network Sutter services in the Tied Markets
and the inability to change Sutter's status as a preferred provider
without Sutter's permission -- as anticompetitive because the terms
allegedly prevented health plans from steering their enrollees away
from high-cost Sutter hospitals to lower-priced providers.  As a
result, they allege, health-plan enrollees (including the
Plaintiffs) pay higher premiums.

After the Court certified Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) classes,
the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the "distinct
products" element of their tying claims under the Sherman Act and
Cartwright Act, and Sutter moved for summary judgment on the ground
that its contracts were not unlawful.

In its motion for summary judgment, Sutter contends that its
contracts with the health plans did not condition the purchase of
any service on the purchase of any other service and instead gave
discounted rates to the plans for including Sutter's tied hospitals
in the plans' networks.  That in-network status, it contends,
justifies the lower rates because health plans incentivize members
to choose in-network hospitals by paying most or all in-network
expenses (and few or no out-of-network expenses).  Volume
discounting, Sutter asserts, is not anticompetitive conduct, and
the contract terms protected the benefit of the bargain.  Sutter
also contends that there is no evidence that it willfully
maintained monopoly power in the Tying Markets or that there is a
dangerous probability of monopolization in the Tied Markets.
Finally, it contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on
claims for 2008 to 2010 because the Plaintiffs did not show
class-wide damages.

The Court held a hearing on Oct. 22, 2020.  It granted the
Plaintiffs' unopposed partial summary-judgment motion and held that
inpatient hospital services at Sutter's tying hospitals, on the one
hand, and inpatient hospital services offered at Sutter's tied
hospitals, on the other, are distinct or separate products under
the Cartwright and Sherman Acts.  The Court deferred issuing its
ruling on Sutter's summary-judgment motion until the opt-out period
ended to prevent one-way intervention and held -- for the reasons
stated on the record -- that Sutter had not waived the issue.  The
opt-out period ended March 8, 2021.24

Tying Claims -- Sherman Act Section 1 and Cartwright Act (Counts I
and III)

Sutter contends that it never conditioned access to inpatient
services in the Tying Markets to the health plans' including
inpatient services in the Tied Markets in their networks, and it
never required health plans to pay for one service as a condition
for accessing another service. Instead, it gave discounted rates to
the health plans for including Sutter's hospitals in their
networks.

The Magistrate Judge holds that disputed facts about the combined
effect of the contract provisions preclude summary judgment.  On
similar facts, another court reached the same conclusion.  First,
the Magistrate Judge holds that the contracts were systemwide and
required health plans to include Sutter inpatient services in the
Tied Markets.  There are fact disputes about whether this was
merely Sutter's setting its prices, or rather, whether Sutter
forced higher prices in the Tied Markets that were passed through
to consumers through insurance premiums.

Second, the contracts prevented insurers from changing Sutter's
status in the health plans' networks (by, for example, putting
Sutter providers into less preferred tiers resulting in lower
costs) without Sutter's consent.  There is evidence that Sutter
permitted health plans to exclude or tier Sutter hospitals.  But
there is evidence that it was occasional, that Sutter denied
requests to put Sutter hospitals in non-preferred tiers, and that
when health plans tried to market lower-cost tiered networks that
did not include Sutter in the favored tier, Sutter threatened to
terminate the contracts and sue the plans.  There is evidence too
that the plans objected to the provisions and ultimately acceded to
them because they had no choice.

Course-of-Conduct Claims -- Sherman Act Section 1 and Cartwright
Act (Counts II-III)

The Plaintiffs predicate the course-of-conduct claims on (1) the
same systemwide contracts that allegedly condition the insurers'
access to inpatient services in the Tying Markets to their
including inpatient services in the Tied Markets in their network
and (2) the same contract terms that allegedly result in higher
prices: the 95-percent sub-par rate, the contractual impediments to
tiering, and the confidentiality provisions.  Sutter contends that
these are the same claims, "in slightly different garb," as the
tying claims and challenges them on the grounds addressed in the
last section.  The Magistrate Judge holds that disputes of fact
preclude summary judgment on these claims too.

Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization Claims -- Sherman Act
Section 2 (Counts IV-V)

Sutter moved for summary judgment on the Sherman Act Section 2
monopolization and attempted monopolization on the ground that the
Plaintiffs alleged only conduct that does not raise a triable issue
on the Sherman Act Section 1 claim.  If a Section 2 claim is
predicated only on facts "insufficient to withstand summary
judgment" on a Section 1 claim, then the Section 2 claim does not
survive a summary-judgment motion either.  Because disputed issues
of fact preclude summary judgment on the Section 1 claims, the
Magistrate Judge denies summary judgment on this ground.

Sutter also moved for summary judgment on the monopolization claim
(primarily because there is no evidence of its willful maintenance
of market power in the Tying Markets) and on the attempted
monopolization claim (primarily because there is no dangerous
probability of monopolization in the Tied Markets).  The Magistrate
Judge grants summary judgment on both claims.

First, she finds that the Plaintiffs have not produced evidence
that shows disputed material facts about Sutter's willful
maintenance of monopoly power.  And although there are material
disputes about whether Sutter had monopoly power, the Magistrate
Judge grants summary judgment on the Section 2 monopolization claim
because the Plaintiffs have not shown that disputed material facts
exist about Sutter's willful maintenance of the alleged monopoly
power.

Second, the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiffs do not cite any
evidence -- except for higher prices in the Tied Markets -- to
support their contention of a dangerous probability of
monopolization.  Thus, there are no disputed facts showing a
dangerous probability of Sutter's achieving monopoly power in the
Tied Markets.

In sum, the Magistrate Judge grants summary judgment to Sutter on
the Section 2 claims (counts IV and V).

Unfair Competition Law (Count VI)

The UCL claim survives to the extent that the underlying claims
survive.

Conclusion

Magistrate Judge Beller grants summary judgment to Sutter for 2008
to 2010 because the Plaintiffs' failure to prove damages means that
they failed to establish injury.  She denies summary judgment for
the Sherman Act Section 1 and Cartwright Act claims because
disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment.  She grants
summary judgment on the Sherman Act Section 2 claims because the
Plaintiffs did not produce evidence showing disputes of material
fact.  Her Order disposes of ECF Nos. 838 and 838-1.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/aef25j42 from Leagle.com.


SWEET CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweet Candy Company.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sweet Candy Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-02206 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2021).

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

Sweet Candy Company -- https://www.sweetcandy.com/ -- is one of the
oldest family-owned and operated candy companies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in SISTEL Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that an appeal from a
decision in the class action by SISTEL Participants' Association
(ASTEL) in the state of Sao Paulo remains pending.

A class action filed by SISTEL Participants' Association (ASTEL) in
the state of Sao Paulo, in which SISTEL associates question the
changes made in the HealthCare Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) of
the Association and seek the re-establishment of the status quo.

This proceeding is in the appeal phase under review by the superior
court.

The amount cannot be estimated in that it entails a return to the
prior conditions.

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

Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.


TELEFONICA BRASIL: FENAPAS Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by National Federation of
Associations of Retirees and Pensioners and Participants in Pension
Funds in Telecom (FENAPAS).

National Federation of Associations of Retirees and Pensioners and
Participants in Pension Funds in Telecom (FENAPAS) filed a class
action against the Company, seeking the annulment of the spin-off
of the PBS pension benefit plan, that occurred in 2000, and created
the specific TELESP PBS pension benefit plan, and the corresponding
allocation of resources resulted from the technical surplus and
fiscal contingencies existing at that time.

The success rate of the Company is deemed possible based on the
opinion of the company's legal advisors.

The amount involved cannot yet be determined until an expert
appraisal report is conducted since it includes the spin-off
portion of Sistel related to the telecommunication operators from
the former "Telebras System". The lower court ruled against the
Company.

Subsequently, the lack of jurisdiction of the State Court was
acknowledged and the case was referred to the Federal Courts for
re-trial.

Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.

TELEFONICA BRASIL: Prepaid Minutes Related Class Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to expiration of prepaid
minutes.

The Company and other wireless carriers are currently defendants in
two class actions brought by the Public Prosecutor's Office and
consumer associations challenging the defined period for use of
prepaid minutes.

The plaintiffs allege that the prepaid minutes should not expire
after a specific period. Conflicting decisions were handed down by
courts on the matter, even though the Company believes that its
criteria for the period determination comply with ANATEL standards.


In relation to these two ongoing lawsuits, there are appeals
pending judgment by the Regional Federal Court (TRF) and the
Superior Tax Court (STJ) filed by the opposing parties, due to the
favorable decision obtained by the Company.

The other lawsuits, already closed, had decisions in favor of the
interests of the Company that have been final and unappealable.

Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.

TEVA PHARMA: Court Supplements Ruling in Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-558
(SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut supplements his order denying
the Defendants' request that he delays ruling on the Plaintiffs'
pending motion for class certification.

During a status conference call on March 3, 2021, Judge Underhill
denied the Defendants' request that he delays ruling on the
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification to allow the
parties to engage in further written discovery and supplemental
briefing regarding the Plaintiffs' securities trading activity.
His Order supplements the statements that he made on the record
explaining his decision.

On Feb. 4, 2021, a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
removed Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") as the lead counsel for
the lead plaintiff in that putative securities fraud class action
-- Pelletier v. Endo Int'l PLC, 2021 WL 398495, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa.
Feb. 4, 2021).  BFA is also the lead counsel for the Lead Plaintiff
(Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and named plaintiff Anchorage
Police & Fire Retirement System) in the instant putative securities
class action.

Although the only clear connection between the action and the Endo
action is the identity of the lead counsel, the Defendants claim
that the recent Endo decision raises many questions in the matter.
In a February 12 letter to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants claimed
that, as in Endo, BFA and the Plaintiffs in the Action have gone to
great lengths to avoid producing any documents substantiating their
Teva transactions and the persons involved.  Although the
Plaintiffs denied those allegations, to try to resolve any
potential issues, on February 18 the parties entered into a
stipulation allowing for certain productions and disclosures
regarding the Plaintiffs' securities trading activity.

The Defendants are not satisfied with the Plaintiffs' production
pursuant to that stipulation.  In the Defendants' view, the
Plaintiffs' partial disclosures and productions raise serious
concerns about not only BFA's prior representations to the Court,
but also the Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23.  According to the Defendants, the "new" -- and still
missing -- information regarding the Plaintiffs' trading activity
might impact no less than all of the following "important issues":
"materiality, loss causation, class predominance, lead counsel's
appointment, and the Plaintiffs' standing, knowledge, reliance,
adequacy, and typicality."

The Defendants' concerns regard two main topics: The Plaintiffs'
failures to (1) disclose all their trades in Teva securities, and
(2) identify relevant third parties. They also point to several
purported "one-on-one" meetings in 2013 and 2015 between both
Anchorage's investment manager and Ontario Teachers' investment
managers and Teva management.  The Defendants also claim that
several investment managers involved with Ontario Teachers' "traded
for an Ontario subsidiary," but no further details are known.
Further, according to them, Ontario Teachers' failed to disclose
the fact that its subsidiary -- Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC -- was
"uniquely situated and intimately involved with Teva and its
shareholders."

The Defendants claim that this "new" information is vital.  Had
they known the full extent of the Plaintiffs' trading activity and
the roles of relevant third parties, the Defendants claim they
"would not have agreed to forgo challenging Plaintiffs' adequacy
and typicality."  According to the Defendants, the "new"
information also raises potential issues regarding predominance
because of the "Plaintiffs' unique access to Teva's management."

As Judge Underhill has already indicated on the record, he
disagrees with the Defendants.  He views their complaints as
belated, specious, and, in several cases, irrelevant.  He says the
"new" information the Defendants' identify does not warrant
re-opening discovery and delaying my ruling on the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Regarding the Plaintiffs' trading
in Teva securities, there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs long
ago fully and accurately disclosed all their transactions during
the Class Period in Teva securities that are at issue in the case.

In the Judge's view, the fact that Ontario Teachers' apparently
transacted in Teva Notes after the Class Period in the matter is
essentially irrelevant.  It is also irrelevant that, during the
Class Period, Ontario Teachers' transacted in several Teva
securities that are not the subject of the action -- Teva corporate
debentures, credit default swaps to hedge their holdings in those
corporate bonds, and Teva common stock, which traded in Israel

The Defendants also make a mountain out of a molehill with respect
to the role of third-party investment managers.  In the Judge's
view, the Plaintiffs were not required in the case to disclose the
existence of third-party investment managers as part of their
initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1).  That rule requires a
party to provide information that it "may use to support its claims
or defenses."  That disclosure obligation "cover only information
that the disclosing party may use to support its position." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment.  The
Plaintiffs have not thus far relied on any information regarding
third-party investment managers to support their case, and they
represent that they will not.  The Defendants do not claim
otherwise.

The "one-on-one" meetings that Teva claims occurred between the
Plaintiffs' investment managers and Teva management in 2013 and
2015 also do not suggest any impropriety.  First, the information
leading to the "discovery" of these meetings is not "new." Second,
the existence of these "one-on-one" meetings does not raise any red
flags.

The Defendants also indicated that Ontario Teachers' standing is
now in question because Ontario Teachers' may not have actually
owned the Teva securities that it claims it did.  Again, the Judge
holds that there is no reason the Defendants could not have raised
this issue long ago, including in their class certification
briefing.  No evidence suggests that Ontario Teachers' did not hold
legal title to the Teva securities that it certifies it owned.  The
Plaintiffs have also alleged that they (1) suffered an
injury-in-fact, (2) caused by the Defendants' purported fraud, that
(3) is redressable.  If the Defendants choose at some point to make
a further argument regarding the Plaintiffs' standing, the Judge
will evaluate that challenge.  But he will not delay deciding the
Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification for that
purpose.

The Defendants freely admit that the Endo decision was the catalyst
for their recent blitz regarding the Plaintiffs' trading
activities. In my view, the Endo decision is virtually irrelevant.
So far as the Judge can tell, BFA's written and oral
representations to him in the case have been truthful and candid:
He does not share the Endo Court's concerns regarding BFA.

Over one year ago, the Defendants conceded that the Plaintiffs were
typical and adequate class representatives.  Based on a decision in
a different case involving BFA, the Defendants in recent weeks
experienced buyer's remorse and sought information from the
Plaintiffs regarding their trading activities.  That information
has confirmed that the Plaintiffs accurately represented the
entirety of their transactions during the Class Period in Teva
securities at issue in this case.  And none of the information
gives the Judge pause or warrants halting the case's progress to
delve into tangentially related topics (at best) that the
Defendants either long ago conceded or abandoned.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/efjnuckf from Leagle.com.


TEVA PHARMA: Opioid Suit Removed from Com. Pleas Ct. to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., was removed from the the Court
of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
Feb. 23, 2022.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-op-45030-DAP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges claims against two Defendant groups:
Manufacturer Defendants and Distributor Defendants. As a subset of
the Distributor Defendants, the Plaintiff notes that Defendants
CVS, Rite Aid, Walmart, 2 and Walgreens shall be referred to as
"National Retail Pharmacies."

The Plaintiff brings claims related to prescription opioid
medications, including claims for (1) consumer fraud and deceptive
practices under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law; (2) public nuisance; (3) negligence; (4)
unjust enrichment; (5) common law fraud; (6) civil conspiracy for
deceptive marketing; and (7) civil conspiracy for unlawful
distribution practices. Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable
relief for alleged injuries to the residents of Middletown
Township.

This action is one of approximately 3,000 opioid lawsuits filed by
government entities and other plaintiffs against manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers of prescription opioid medications. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for the economic and
non-economic injuries suffered by Plaintiff and its residents,
including physicians treating residents and employees, and
opioid-addicted individuals.

The Defendants include CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ORTHO-McNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO
HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; McKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS
PLC,; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMA, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICALS
COMPANIES, INC.; ANDA,INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC., DBA RITE AID MID- ATLANTIC CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER,
INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION; WAL-MART INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
LLC; ECKERD CORPORATION; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; KVK-TECH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION,; HD SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG
COMPANY; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; AND
WALGREEN, CO.[BN]

Counsel for CVS Health Corporation are:

          Mark D. Villanueva, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON
          STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
          2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-8000
          E-mail: mvillanueva@stradley.com

               - and -

          Conor B. O'Croinin, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 949-1160
          E-mail: cocroinin@zuckerman.com

TEVA PHARMA: Two Classes Certified in Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO:, Case No. 3:17-cv-558 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R.
Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
and denied the Defendants' Daubert motion.

The consolidated action consists of 25 separate cases.  In those
cases, numerous Plaintiffs have sued Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., various Teva subsidiaries, and several current
and former employees and officers of Teva.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants violated federal and state securities laws
because they misrepresented the reasons for Teva's financial
success.  More specifically, they allege that the Defendants
publicly attributed Teva's success to good business decisions when,
in fact, Teva was thriving because it was artificially and
collusively inflating the prices of certain generic drugs that it
manufactured.

Four of the cases in the consolidated action are putative class
actions.  On June 19, 2020, the lead and named Plaintiffs made a
motion for class certification.  The Defendants in the lead
putative class action are Teva, Teva Pharmaceuticals Finance
Netherlands III B.V., and several current and former officers of
Teva (collectively, "Defendants").

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

      (1) As to claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
all persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, purchased
or otherwise acquired the following securities during the period
from Feb. 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive (the Class
Period), and were damaged thereby: A. Teva American Depositary
Shares (ADS); b. Teva 7% mandatory convertible preferred shares
issued on or about Dec. 3, 2015 and Jan. 6, 2016 (Preferred
Shares); c. The following Teva Finance U.S.-dollar-denominated
senior notes issued on or about July 21, 2016: i. 1.4% Senior Notes
due July 20, 2018; ii. 1.700% Senior Notes due July 19, 2019; iii.
2.200% Senior Notes due July 21, 2021; iv. 2.8% Senior Notes due
July 21, 2023; v. 3.15% Senior Notes due Oct. 1, 2026; and vi. 4.1%
Senior Notes due Oct. 1, 2046; and

      (2) As to claims under the Securities Act of 1933, all
persons and entities who, in domestic transactions, purchased or
otherwise acquired ADS, Preferred Shares, and Notes pursuant or
traceable to the offerings of ADS and Preferred Shares completed on
or about Dec. 3, 2015 and Jan. 6, 2016, or the offering of the
Notes completed on or about July 21, 2016; and as to the alleged
additional state-law claims, all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired ADS pursuant to Teva's Employee Stock
Purchase Plan for U.S. Employees (ESPP) during the Class Period,
and were damaged thereby.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them Class
Representatives of the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
and to appoint Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as the Class Counsel,
with Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP as the Class Liaison
Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).  The Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is supported by opinions and reports by a purported
expert on market efficiency.

In opposition, the Defendants submit reports from three experts of
their own.  They ask the Court to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert's
opinions and to strike David I. Tabak's expert reports.

On January 29, the Court held oral argument on the instant
motions.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

Judge Underhill finds that the Plaintiffs have established all the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  He finds that (i)
the proposed Class will likely include thousands of members, which
is well above the 40-member threshold that triggers a presumption
in favor of numerosity; (ii) the Defendants cannot challenge the
Plaintiffs' typicality and adequacy; (iii) the Plaintiffs have no
apparent conflicts of interest, let alone any "fundamental" ones
that might render them inadequate class representatives; and (iv)
the Plaintiffs' attorneys are "qualified, experienced and able to
conduct the litigation.  The Judge further finds that the
Plaintiffs' model for classwide damages also supports the
conclusion that common issues of law and fact will predominate over
individual ones.

Defendants' Daubert Motion

The Defendants claim that Dr. Tabak's tests are unreliable because
they (1) were not grounded in sufficient data, (2) were applied
unreliably, and (3) depend on unreliable methods. Regarding (1),
the Defendants simply reiterate their argument that in classifying
news days, Dr. Tabak "did not identify material, unexpected news"
and "did not even review the news articles on which he bases his
opinions."  Regarding (2), the Defendants renew their attacks
regarding (a) the potential for reverse causality, and (b) the
alleged "deviations" from Dr. Tabak's prior approaches.  Regarding
(3), they also recycle several of the arguments that they have
already made.

Judge Underhill holds that the Defendants' Daubert motion is
essentially duplicative of their opposition to class certification.
That repetitiveness emphasizes two important points.  First, the
Defendants' challenge mostly involves attempting to discredit Dr.
Tabak's Cammer 5 analysis.  The Judge views that effort as slightly
misguided because the Judge's analysis is "holistic" and, in the
case, the indirect Cammer and Krogman factors provide strong
indications of market efficiency.

Second, the Judge finds that nearly all of the Defendants' gripes
with Dr. Tabak's tests regard the weight the Judge should afford
the results, rather than their admissibility.  The FDT test is an
"application of a commonly used statistical technique."  In
analogous circumstances, courts have noted that similar challenges
to an FDT test were "appropriately considered as part of the
Judge's analysis of the merits of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification even though the arguments were "styled as part of a
motion to strike expert testimony."  For those reasons, he will
deny the Defendants' Daubert motion that seeks to exclude Dr.
Tabak's opinions and to strike his expert reports.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Underhill granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and appointment of class
representatives and class counsel.  He denied the Defendants'
Daubert motion to exclude the opinions and strike the reports of
the Plaintiffs' expert.

Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board and Anchorage Police & Fire
Retirement System are appointed the Class Representatives.
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is appointed Class Counsel. And Carmody
Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP is appointed the Class Liaison
Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fa4mxmx from Leagle.com.


TITLEMAX FINANCING: Hyton Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Titlemax Financing,
Inc. The case is styled as Marlene Hyton, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Titlemax Financing, Inc., a Florida
Corporation Case No. 1:21-cv-20994-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 12,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Titlemax Financing, Inc. -- https://www.titlemax.com/ -- was
founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes providing
loans to individuals as well as financing retail sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          31 Samana Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set for Dec. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Martin, et al., v.
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10518-JVS-MRW
(C.D. Calif.), the Court entered an order regarding scheduling
dates as follows:

   Jury Trial                           September 13, 2022

   Final PreTrial Conference            August 29, 2022

   File PreTrial Documents              August 22, 2022
   not later than:

   File motions in limine               July 25, 2022
   not later than:

   Discovery Cut-off:                   April 30, 2022

   Expert Discovery Cut-off:            July 22, 2022

   Initial disclosure of Experts        March 28, 2022
   not later than:

   Rebuttal disclosure of Experts       May 12, 2022
   not later than:

   Law and Motion Cut-off               August 1, 2022

   Motions to be filed and              July 1, 2022
   served not later than:

   Last Day to File Motion              December 13, 2021
   for Class Certification:

   Opposition to Motion for             January 12, 2022
   Class Certification:

   Reply to Motion for                  February 14, 2022
   Class Certification:

   Hearing on Motion for                February 28, 2022
   Class Certification:

   Last Day to File Motion              June 11, 2022
   for Summary Judgment:

   Opposition to Motion for             July 11, 2022
   Summary Judgment:

   Reply to Motion for                  July 18, 2022
   Summary Judgment:

TMCC provides automotive finance services.

A copy of the civil minutes – general dated March 3, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38ABMqc at no
extra charge.[CC]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Hagopian Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hovsep Hagopian, as an individual, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 21STCV03559 was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on March 12, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02248 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ --
is a holding company of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of
Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
          Armen Margarian, Esq.
          Shushanik Margarian, Esq.
          THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
          801 North Brand Boulevard Suite 210
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 553-1000
          Fax: (818) 553-1005
          Email: hovanes@margarianlaw.com
                 armen@margarianlaw.com
                 shushanik@margarianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth A Sperling, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 576-1000
          Fax: (213) 576-1100
          Email: elizabeth.sperling@alston.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Faces Head-Egypt Suit Over Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA HEAD-EGYPT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY
AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS CONSTITUTION STATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. A-21-829897-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark
Cty., Feb. 23, 2021) seeks class-wide relief for Travelers' failure
to provide and charge a fair and appropriate insurance premium and
to provide premium reduction to its Nevada automobile insurance
policyholders amid the COVID-pandemic.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all Nevada residents who held automobile insurance
policies through Travelers as of March 1, 2020, and who have
thereafter continued to be Travelers automobile policyholders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class, along with
everyone in this country, have faced substantial life changes since
March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced
driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and miles
driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the Plaintiff and
the class members' vehicles. Travelers has not taken the
appropriate action to reduce the Plaintiff and the class members'
premiums to accurately reflect the decreased risk, the suit
alleges.

Plaintiff Head-Egypt is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a
current automobile insurance policyholder of Travelers.

Travelers is an insurance company licensed to do business in
Nevada, and it sells automobile insurance to Nevada residents and
charges and collects premiums from those residents. Collectively,
the Defendants are all part of the Travelers family of companies,
licensed in Nevada to sell automobile insurance policies within the
State of Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

U.S. BORAX: Jungers Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT G. JUNGERS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. U.S. BORAX INC.; RIO TINTO AMERICA
INC.; RIO TINTO SERVICES INC.; AMANDA SMITH; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-102912, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 11, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00400-NONE-JLT 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,
failure to indemnify, and unfair competition.

U.S. Borax Inc. is a company that provides mining and refining
services based in Boron, California.

Rio Tinto America Inc. is a global mining group based in Utah.

Rio Tinto Services Inc. is a company that offers mining services in
South Jordan, Utah. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         David A. Wimmer, Esq.
         Meghan E. O'Kane, Esq.
         SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW & WIMMER
         A Law Corporation
         9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 828
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 288-3980
         Facsimile: (310) 733-1727
         E-mail: dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com
                 mokane@swerdlowlaw.com

UNITED STATES: On Relief Aid to Win Back Wary Working Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Will Weissert at actionnewsjax.com reports that when Joe Biden
visited this corner of southwestern Pennsylvania in the final weeks
before the election, his goal wasn't to win it so much as to show
the area's overwhelmingly white working-class electorate that his
party was at least willing to try.

"A lot of white, working-class Democrats thought we forgot them,"
Biden said after touring a union training facility during a late
September swing through Westmoreland County. "I get their sense of
being left behind."

Democrats have offered paeans like that since President Franklin D.
Roosevelt delivered the New Deal and cemented an alliance with
working-class voters. That bond was rooted in the notion that the
Democrats' policies would improves workers' lives.

But that relationship has steadily frayed, with working-class
voters now casting Democrats as the party of cultural elites who
talk down to them and reject their values. Such resentment has even
driven workers to vote against their seeming economic
self-interest, given that GOP tax policy is often geared toward the
well-to-do and business.

Now Biden and his party are hoping that by muscling through passage
of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief and economic stimulus bill
-- with benefits heavily weighted toward lower- and middle-income
Americans -- they can win back at least a larger share of
working-class voters.

The president is flying to Delaware County, outside Philadelphia,
to help promote the new aid.

Still, that proposition - which Republicans dismiss as a "liberal
wish list" -- will be tested in places such as Westmoreland County.
More than 250 miles west, the county was a Democratic stronghold
until its industrial base withered.

"These are the kind of issues that are a little bit more
meat-and-potatoes and that we should focus on in this area," said
Paul Adams, a former county Democratic official.

"Despite the fact that our sympathies may be with other issues,"
Adams said, referring to larger efforts to tackle racism and
promote gay rights, "it's hard to get traction with that with the
local population."

Democrats are banking on direct payments of $1,400 to most
Americans under the COVID-19 law as a strong counter to that
criticism. The package also dramatically expands tax credits for
families with children, bolsters unemployment benefits, reduces
taxes on student loan debt and lowers costs of the Obama-era health
law's coverage.

Ed Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the
legislation won't singlehandedly solve the party's problems with
working-class voters but is "a good first mile down the road."

"It is incumbent upon us to make the case -- which I believe has
always been there to make, we've just done a (terrible) job -- that
we're the party of the working guy," Rendell said. "And the
Republicans are using smoke and mirrors."

By some estimates, the law could reduce the nation's poverty rate
by one-third. That may have an outsize impact on Westmoreland
County, whose under-65 population receives more federal disability
benefits than the national average and where less than one-third of
residents have a college degree, according to federal estimates.

The town of Jeannette used to boast of being the "Glass Capital of
the World," but nearly all of those factories are long gone. A
nearby Volkswagen plant shuttered in 1988, wiping out 2,500 jobs.

But the strong economic incentives in the relief bill are colliding
with the structural support here for former President Donald Trump.
Trump 2020 yard signs and flags -- often carefully preserved
against winter snows -- still line the hilly roadsides beyond the
hulking husks of the abandoned bottle works. The Democratic county
sheriff became a Republican last summer, saying his old party
wasn't supporting law enforcement strongly enough during
demonstrations that swept the country over police brutality and
racism.

Like Biden, Trump campaigned in Westmoreland County, and he won the
county by nearly 30 percentage points. But Biden got about 11,000
more votes here than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That's
significant given that Biden won Pennsylvania by only about 80,500
votes.

Bill Bretz, chairman of the county's Republican Party, said the new
direct economic benefits are canceled out by other Biden
administration policies. That includes nixing the Keystone XL
pipeline, which has raised fears that Pennsylvania's natural gas
producers could face similar limits in the name of battling climate
change.

"There's a lot of people who are still registered Democrats, who
still hold on to those working-class Democratic values," Bretz
said. "But their sensitivities are violated by the national
Democratic platform."

Indeed, people like Mary Wilmes, who owns a gift shop in the county
seat of Greensburg, doesn't like to rile customers with talk of
politics. But she did offer praise for Biden and his work promoting
the stimulus. "He's giving you the sense that he cares about
people," she said.

"It's not like before," Wilmes added, "when what we had was,
‘It's all about himself.'"

The white working-class helped fuel Trump's 2016 rise, but those
voters have actually been gravitating to Republicans since 1992,
according to research by Noam Lupu, a political science professor
at Vanderbilt University. Working-class African Americans have
remained steadfastly loyal to Democrats, but Trump saw his support
among Latinos improve in 2020. That could indicate that a broader
shift away from Democrats may be resonating with some Hispanics.

"I think, for the Democratic Party, it's a tough coalition to
maintain: working-class voters who are really focused on their
economic interests, but, at the same time, very progressive social
positions for the urban, educated voters," Lupu said. "I think
Biden has an opportunity to rebrand the party a little bit."

Working-class generally denotes people without college degrees who
have lower wage jobs. It also can mean better educated, better paid
middle-class earners who don't like defining themselves as rich or
poor. Trump won 62% of white voters without a college degree in
November, according to AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey of the
electorate.

During the campaign, Biden tried to contrast what he called the
working family sensitivities of his birth city of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, with Trump's Fifth Avenue, big city values. Biden
also has pledged to be " the most pro-union president you've ever
seen."

"A number of working-class people have seen politics not deliver
for their families, and sometimes that's when Democrats are in
charge and sometimes that's when Republicans are in charge," said
Rick Levy, president of the Texas AFL-CIO. "It creates an opening
for demagogues who say, ‘I can fix it.'"

Some top Republicans have begun arguing that theirs is actually the
party of the working-class -- mixing economic appeal with key
social issues such as promoting gun rights and opposing abortion,
along with emphasizing opposition to the cancellation of some Dr.
Seuss books and dropping "Mr." from Potato Head so the toy better
promotes gender inclusivity.

"We are a working-class party now," Missouri Republican Sen. Josh
Hawley tweeted on election night. Hawley also offered legislation
to raise the minimum wage to $15, long a position of progressive
Democrats.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently declared the GOP the "party of
steel workers and construction workers and taxi drivers and cops
and firefighters and waitresses." He has proposed a $10,000
scholarship helping parents who live in areas where schools remain
shuttered because of the virus to pay for education elsewhere.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., endorsed a union organizing drive at an
Amazon warehouse in Alabama, accusing the online giant's leadership
of waging a "culture war against working-class values."

Levy said Democrats can now point to concrete provisions of the
relief law, which he said also shows that the GOP is "never going
to support working-class people."

But some say the stimulus package may prove hollow over the long
term.

"It's a good thing now," Lucas Szekely, a 19-year-old community
college student from Irwin, west of Jeannette, said of getting
another stimulus check. "But you can't keep doing it forever." [GN]

USAA CASUALTY: Faces Cain Suit Over Car Insurance Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER CAIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. A-21-829884-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark Cty., Feb. 23, 2021)
seeks class-wide relief for USAA's failure to provide and charge a
fair and appropriate insurance premium and to provide premium
reduction to its Nevada automobile insurance policyholders amid the
COVID-pandemic.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all Nevada residents who held automobile insurance
policies through USAA as of March 1, 2020, and who have thereafter
continued to be USAA automobile policyholders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class, along with
everyone in this country, have faced substantial life changes since
March 1, 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including reduced
driving time and miles. The reduction of driving time and miles
driven reduces the risk associated with insuring the Plaintiff and
the class members' vehicles. USAA has not taken the appropriate
action to reduce the Plaintiff and the class members' premiums to
accurately reflect the decreased risk, the suit says.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Nevada, and a current
automobile insurance policyholder of USAA.

USAA is an insurance company licensed to do business in Nevada, and
it sells automobile insurance to Nevada residents and charges and
collects premiums from those citizens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Cassandra S.M. Cummings, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS
          400 S. Seventh St., Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          E-mail: eservice@egletlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Sharp, Esq.
          MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
          432 Ridge Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 324-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 284-0675

VIENNA CONVALESCENT: Speth Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vienna Convalescent
Hospital, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Betty Speth,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Vienna Convalescent Hospital, Inc., a
California corporation; Vienna Nursing and Rehabilitation Center,
an unknown business entity; Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002189 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 12, 2021).

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

Vienna Convalescent Hospital, Inc., doing business as Vienna
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center --
http://www.viennanursingrehab.com/-- provides healthcare services.
The Company offers physical, occupational, speech, intravenous, and
oxygen therapies, as well as wound and hospice care, nursing, and
medication services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


VON BRIESEN: Parties in Lenzner Suit Agree to File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA LENZNER,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. VON
BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-00133-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the
Parties submit their joint stipulation for conditional collective
action class certification and court-authorized notice.

The parties have agreed to the following class definition for
purposes of this Stipulation:

   "All persons currently or formerly employed by Von Briesen &
   Roper, S.C., as paralegals who have not been compensated at a
   rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
   hours worked over 40 in a workweek at any time from February
   16, 2018 through the present."

Von Briesen is a Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin based law firm.

A copy of the Parties motion dated March 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bSqVKx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: cmadden@hq-law.com
                  dzoeller@hq-law.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Ross W. Townsend, Esq.
          R. George Burnett, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF CONWAY, OLEJNICZAK & JERRY, S.C.
          231 South Adams Street
          Post Office Box 23200
          Green Bay, WI 54305-3200
          Telephone: (920) 437-0476
          Facsimile: (920) 437-2868
          E-mail: rwt@lcojlaw.com
                  gb@lcojlaw.com

VOSS & KLEIN: Faces Naidus FDCPA Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voss & Klein, LLC.
The case is captioned as KAROL NAIDUS v. Voss & Klein, LLC, Case
No. 0:21-cv-60428-RS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 23, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Rodney Smith.

Voss an&Klein is a debt collection agency in Pompano Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          PO Box 6018
          Jacksonville, FL 32236
          Telephone: (904) 359-5544
          Facsimile: (904) 485-8422
          E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces BCBSM Suit Over Daraprim Drug Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS; and BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; PHOENIXUS AG; MARTIN
SHKRELI; and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01884
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 4, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants engage
in a scheme to monopolize the U.S. market for Daraprim, an
essential, life-saving drug used in the treatment of toxoplasmosis,
through an array of anticompetitive conduct that successfully
thwarted generic competition for years and continues to cause
supracompetitive prices.

Since Daraprim lacked patent and regulatory protections, the
Defendants understood that such an astronomical price increase
would cause competitors to develop generic versions of Daraprim and
sell them at lower prices. To prevent this, and to make their
planned price increase commercially viable, Defendants executed a
scheme to thwart generic competition and force Daraprim purchasers
to pay grossly inflated prices, all while concealing and misleading
the public about their anticompetitive conduct, the suit says.

Absent the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive and deceptive
conduct, multiple generic competitors would have entered the
Daraprim market sooner and at lower prices, rendering the
Defendants' price hike unsustainable, such that they would not have
pursued it in the first place.

Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC operates as a biopharmaceutical company.
The Company focuses on developing and commercializing innovative
treatments for patients with unmet medical needs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Benjamin Steinberg, Esq.
          Adam Mendel, Esq.
          Vidya Dindiyal, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com
                  amendel@robinskaplan.com
                  vdindiyal@robinskaplan.com


WEST CHICAGO, IL: Judgment & Dismissal Order in Souza Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID SOUZA, JEFFREY POSADZY, ATCHERSON ASSOCIATION,
and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE
CITY OF WEST CHICAGO and WATER RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 2-20-0047 (Ill. App.), a three-judge
panel of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed
the trial court's decision granting the motion for judgment on the
pleadings under section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure
filed by Defendant City of West Chicago, as well as its earlier
decision granting the motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9)
of the Code filed by Defendant Water Resources.

On Feb. 14, 2019, Souza and Posadzy filed a three-count class
action complaint against the Defendants, alleging that Plaintiffs
Souza, Posadzy, and all potential class members were residential
water-service customers and that the City, a municipality formed
under the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq. (West
2018)), had engaged in unlawful billing practices, charging them
for water and sewer services outside of the 12-month period
prescribed by the water-utility billing provision of the Municipal
Code, section 11-150-2).  Specifically, the complaint alleged that
the City owned a water and sewage system that provided services to
residential and commercial properties within City boundaries.

In July 2011, the Defendants contracted with Water Resources to
replace residential water meters, update meter equipment, and
implement electronic advancements that would benefit customers by
allowing electronic access to monitor water consumption.  Shortly
after the equipment installation, the City learned that numerous
customers were experiencing deficient, inaccurate, and/or missing
water meter readings.  After experiencing years of these errors,
the City terminated its contract with Water Resources, effective
July 30, 2016.  However, despite the water-meter and software
malfunctions, the City attempted to bill and collect water-usage
charges from affected residents.

The complaint's first two counts sought declaratory and injunctive
relief and economic damages from the City, based on the City's
attempt to bill more than 12 months after the alleged usage, in
contravention of section 11-150-2's restriction, effective Aug. 18,
2017, that billing must occur within 12 months of the service
provided.  The Plaintiffs alleged that, since 2013, the City issued
bills for services that were provided several years prior to the
invoice.  In the third count, the Plaintiffs sought economic
damages from Water Resources, for breach of its contract with the
City, premised upon the Plaintiffs' alleged status as third-party
beneficiaries of that contract.  The Plaintiffs alleged that, to
the extent that the City's billing was based on a breach of
contract occasioned by Water Resources, the Plaintiffs, as
third-party beneficiaries to that contract, were entitled to
recover all service charges wrongfully billed and/or collected by
the City.  A few days later, the Plaintiffs moved for class
certification.

On March 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
adding Atcherson Association as a nonresidential Pplaintiff and
adding two counts relating to section 11-150-2's requirement that
nonresidential customers be billed within 24 months of the service.
Counts III and VI of the amended complaint pertained to Water
Resources, again alleging third-party beneficiary
breach-of-contract claims related to the City's contract with Water
Resources.

On March 26, 2019, the Court granted the City's earlier-filed
motion for an extension of time to answer the complaint, ordering a
response by May 22, 2019.

Between the court's March 26, 2019, order, and the May 22, 2019,
response due date, the City amended its local ordinance concerning
billing practices.  Specifically, on April 15, 2019, the City
amended section 18-37 of the West Chicago Code of Ordinances (City
Code) with ordinance No. 19-O-0010.

On April 5, 2019, Water Resources filed a section 2-619(a)(9)
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the
Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims against it, as the
Plaintiffs were not parties to its contract with the City.   On
June 5, 2019, the court agreed, and it dismissed counts III and VI
against Water Resources.

On May 22, 2019, the City filed its section 2-615(e) motion for
judgment on the pleadings as to counts I, II, and V of the amended
complaint.  The City conceded that, since 2013, it had to delay
issuing water bills to many of its customers.

Alternatively, the City also filed a section 2-615 motion to
dismiss the complaint.  In sum, the City argued that the Plaintiffs
were seeking to avoid payment for consumed water and that the
complaint should be dismissed because (1) the Plaintiffs had not
identified a cognizable legal theory to support their claims for
declaratory relief, (2) no cause of action had been alleged for the
claims seeking injunctive relief and damages, (3) the claims for
damages were barred by the Moorman doctrine, and (4) the Plaintiffs
fundamentally misunderstood the requirements of the statute at
issue.

In separate responses to the motions, the Plaintiffs noted, in sum,
that the State's express public policy when enacting section
11-150-2 was to protect consumers of municipally provided water
services from being billed for services provided more than 12
months earlier.   They argued that the provision's application to
"any municipality operating a waterworks or combined waterworks and
sewage system," included home rule municipalities.  Moreover, they
disagreed that the Municipal Code was directory, asserting that it
was, instead, a "mandate to municipal providers to be put in the
same regulatory footing as private utility providers."

On Sept. 10, 2019, the court held argument on the City's two
motions.  Thereafter, on Oct. 15, 2019, the court granted the
City's section 2-615(e) motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In
its written memorandum decision, the court determined that two
conflicting laws were at issue -- section 11-150-2 (which contains
billing timeframes) and the Ordinance (which does not contain
billing timeframes) -- but that the Ordinance governed because it
was a valid exercise of the City's home rule authority, which
section 11-150-2 did not expressly limit.  The court determined
that, because the Ordinance was a valid exercise of home rule
power, the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Moreover, because the court granted the section 2-615(e) motion, it
found no need to address the City's alternative section 2-615
motion and ordered it stricken as moot.

On Nov. 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a "motion to limit the scope
of the trial court's Oct. 15, 2019, ruling and to strike as
unconstitutional any retroactive application of the City's newly
amended ordinance."  The next day, Nov. 13, 2019, they filed a
motion for reconsideration.  They argued that the court's judgment
constituted a misapplication of existing law, that it effectively
allowed the "fox to guard the hen house," and that the court should
reverse the judgment and deny the section 2-615(e) motion in its
entirety.

On Nov. 20, 2019, the City moved to strike the Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration, arguing that it violated Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 274 (eff. July 1, 2019) in that the rule permitted only
one postjudgment motion.  In a separate motion, the City also moved
to strike the Plaintiffs' motion to limit the scope of the court's
judgment, arguing, in sum, that the issues raised therein (namely,
the constitutionality of the Ordinance's retroactive application)
were being improperly raised for the first time postjudgment and,
accordingly, were forfeited.

On Nov. 20, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs leave to withdraw their motion to reconsider, filed Nov.
13, 2019, without prejudice to assert arguments made therein on any
appeal.

On Dec. 17, 2019, the court held oral argument on the Plaintiffs'
motion to limit the scope of the judgment.  It granted the City's
motion to strike; however, it also denied on the merits the
Plaintiffs' motion to limit the scope of the judgment.  In
accordance with the oral ruling, the written order granted the
City's motion to strike on the basis that the Plaintiffs' motion to
limit the scope of the judgment, was not properly brought under
section 2-1301(e).  However, it held "additionally," having
considered the merits of the Plaintiffs' motion to limit the scope
of the order, the motion was denied.

On Jan. 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.
They raise numerous arguments on appeal, which can be distilled
into three overarching categories.  First, the Plaintiffs challenge
the propriety of the court's analysis and ruling that the Ordinance
is a valid exercise of home rule authority and, thus, the City is
not bound by section 11-150-2's requirements for water-utility
billing.  Second, they challenge the court's denial of their motion
to limit the scope of the judgment, resulting, they argue, in
unconstitutional retroactive application of the Ordinance.  Third,
they challenge the propriety of the court's decision granting Water
Resources' section 2-619 motion to dismiss, which had asserted that
the Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims, as they
were not third-party beneficiaries to defendants' contract.  The
City and Water Resources have filed separate appellee briefs.

Jurisdiction and Forfeiture

After the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal, the City moved
the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On March 4, 2020, in a minute order, the Court denied the motion.
The City has again challenged jurisdiction, and it also asserts
that the Plaintiffs' arguments are forfeited.

The City asserts that plaintiffs' appeal is "too little too late"
and must be dismissed because it (1) is untimely, (2) raises new
legal arguments and theories for the first time on appeal, and (3)
presents belated legal arguments "on a belated request for
declaratory relief concerning an unpled challenge to the City's
ordinance in a post-judgment motion."

The Appellate Court opines that whether all of the issues raised on
appeal (particularly those that were contemplated in the withdrawn
motion to reconsider) are preserved is a question different from
that of jurisdiction.  It is mindful of the fact that, after the
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, the City amended the
Ordinance and then, instead of answering the complaint, moved for
judgment on the pleadings.  Thus, the Plaintiffs became respondents
to the motion, thereby positioned only to respond to the
allegations in the motion and were, therefore, somewhat constrained
in what arguments could be proffered.  Their overarching argument
in opposition to the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings
centered around their dispute that the City could validly assert
home rule authority as a defense to Municipal Code regulations.
The trial court ultimately sided with the City on that issue; the
Plaintiffs were then presented with their first opportunity to
dispute the trial court's rationale for its decision.

In their motion to limit the scope of the judgment, the Plaintiffs
expressed that they did not intend to forfeit their other
challenges to the merits of the court's judgment.  They also filed
a motion to reconsider the judgment and, although they ultimately
withdrew that motion, the order itself allowed conditional
withdrawal, i.e., withdrawal under the condition that their
arguments remained preserved for appeal.  Without question, that
court order was also unusual.  A party generally preserves an issue
by actually presenting it to the trial court and, so, it seems
incongruous for the trial court here to order that an issue is
preserved, even though it was not, ultimately, presented to the
trial court.

Indeed, the Appellate Court implores trial courts to carefully
consider the impact of their orders, remaining mindful that they
are not necessarily positioned to pronounce as preserved issues
that are not or to bestow upon the Court jurisdiction where there
is none.  In any event, it is well settled that the issue of
forfeiture, as opposed to jurisdiction, is a limitation on the
parties, not on the Court.  All things considered, it strikes the
Court as unfair to deny the Plaintiffs what the trial court
specifically allowed, i.e., the ability to raise these issues on
appeal (even if the trial court was misguided in doing so).  As
such, it concludes that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction over
the appeal.  Further, under these circumstances, forfeiture is not
a basis for dismissal.

Judgment on the Pleadings

On Oct. 15, 2019, the trial court granted the City's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, concluding, in sum, that the Ordinance
reflected a valid exercise of its home rule authority and that, as
section 11-150-2 did not expressly limit home rule authority, the
statute's billing requirements did not preempt the Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs argue that the court's ruling is incorrect because,
while both state and local legislation may attempt to regulate the
same subject matter or issue, the concept of home rule authority
generally provides a basis for local governments to tailor local
solutions to local affairs.  According to them, it is critical to
identify (1) what or who is being regulated under the conflicting
state and local laws, (2) what problem is being addressed by those
laws, and (3) which unit of government has a more vital interest in
regulating the issue.  Doing so, the Plaintiffs argue, reveals that
the Ordinance is not a valid exercise of home rule authority and
that, even if it were, section 11-150-2 expressly limits that
authority.

The Appellate Court disagrees.  It holds that the constitutional
provisions and the statutes reflect an intention to minimize
limitations on home rule powers, and, due to the constitutional
design, courts should apply "judicial interpretation of unexpressed
legislative inaction" to limit home rule powers only in the
"clearest cases," wherein local ordinances interfere with "vital"
state policy.  It is the function of the legislature, not the
courts, to restrict home rule authority.  In short, the Illinois
Constitution, the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/0.01 et seq. (West
2018)), and the state supreme court's case law evidence that,
unless there are unequivocal, clear, and, indeed, almost "magic
words" expressed in a statute reflecting an intent to limit home
rule authority, the Appellate Court cannot interpret the statute in
a manner to impose such restrictions.

The Appellate Court further holds that, where (1) the
constitutional framework relies almost exclusively on the
legislature to determine whether to preempt home rule authority;
(2) yet, as in the case, the legislature has not specifically
denied the City's use of home rule power or required that it
exercise that power consistent with statutory provisions; and (3)
the legislature may, if it wishes to deny or restrict the City's
home rule authority, enact a statute expressly providing for that
action in its next legislative session, the Appellate Court must
conclude that the City's ordinance is a valid exercise of its home
rule power.  As such, the Plaintiffs' claims against the City,
premised on the billing-period limitations in section 11-150-2,
fail, and the trial court properly granted the City's section
2-615(e) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

There is also no right to complimentary water usage under the
Municipal Code, and no court has decreed that section 11-150-2
gives consumers a right to timely water billing.  The Appellate
Court does not agree that the Plaintiffs could have held a settled
expectation respecting any substantial interest, certainly not one
akin to a property interest, such that retroactively applying the
ordinance to their case is improper.

Section 2-619 Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiffs' final argument concerns the trial court's section
2-619 dismissal of the amended complaint's claims against Water
Resources, on the basis that they were not third-party
beneficiaries to the contract between defendants and, thus, had no
standing to pursue those claims.  The court found that the purpose
of the contract was to provide working water meters for the City
and its citizens and that, although the citizens would benefit from
the meters, the nexus was insufficient to give the Plaintiffs a
cause of action against Water Resources.

The Plaintiffs argue that the court's determination was incorrect
because the agreement (a public contract) between the Defendants
confers a direct benefit upon the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
consumers, such as by requiring Water Resources to schedule
equipment installation for consumers, install equipment at their
homes, promote "buy in" from city residents, honor warranty repairs
and maintenance, provide long-term customer support, and populate
their information into electronic systems.  Water Resources
responds that the Plaintiffs fail to point to express language that
overcomes the strong presumption that the contract, even if it
incidentally benefits others, confers direct benefits only on the
two contracting parties.

The Appellate Court opines that the contract at issue benefits the
Plaintiffs only incidentally, and references within the contract to
Water Resources' responsibilities as they pertained to citizens do
not to confer a direct benefit upon the citizens but, rather, are
referenced only to specify its obligations under the contract.  The
references to customers or citizens and Water Resources' tasks to
install equipment, help encourage "buy in" to the new system,
maintain the equipment, or handle complaints are insufficient to
reflect anything more than its own obligations under the contract
that will, incidentally, benefit the public at large.  As the
contract does not clearly intend to directly benefit the
Plaintiffs, the court properly granted Water Resources' section
2-619 motion to dismiss.

Conclusion

For the reasons it stated, the Panel affirmed the judgment of the
circuit court of Du Page County.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 9, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bak9uv2c from Leagle.com.

George L. Acosta -- acosta.g@att.net -- of Acosta & Associates, of
St. Charles, for appellants.

Sean Conway, Mary E. Dickson, and Patrick K. Bond, of Bond, Dickson
& Conway, of Wheaton, for appellee City of West Chicago.

Jeffrey A. Risch -- jrisch@salawus.com -- and Steven W. Jados --
sjados@salawus.com -- of Smith Amundsen LLC, of St. Charles, and
Michael Resis -- mresis@salawus.com -- of Smith Amundsen LLC, of
Chicago, for other appellee.


WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS) ("Workhorse") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities between
July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Workhorse
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com;
or click
https://www.ktmc.com/workhorse-group-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=workhorse

Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United
States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation
Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear
acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package
delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the
NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3
billion.

The Class Period commences on July 7, 2020, when Workhorse Chief
Financial Officer, Steve Schrader, granted an interview to a staff
writer at Benzinga, a financial news publication. The interview
appeared in print on the Benzinga website. When asked how Workhorse
separates itself from the competition generally, Mr. Schrader
responded by explaining why Workhorse trucks were advantageous for
"postal services." The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the defendants continued to indicate that Workhorse would
secure the NGDV contract.

However, on February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS
issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards
Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal
Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh
Defense - not Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV contract.
Following this news, Workhorse's stock price fell $14.88 per share,
or 47%, to close at $16.47 per share in the regular session on
February 23, 2021. The stock price continued to drop in after-hours
trading and opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07, a
fall of over 50% from the previous open.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that USPS was going
to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV, and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had
concealed the fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in
explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle
- electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and
astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Workhorse investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS)
between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important May 7, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action lawsuit first filed by the firm.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Workhorse class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.html
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping
that the USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next
Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication
from the USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had concealed
the fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining
the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle -
electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and
astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Workhorse's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Workhorse class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.html
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Contact Information:

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



WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Nix Fees Charged Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit filed by Workshops + Digital member,
is pending.

In June 2020, a Workshops + Digital (then known as Studio +
Digital) member filed a class action complaint against the Company
in the Superior Court of California in Ventura County.

The complaint was filed on behalf of all Workshops + Digital
members nationwide and regards the fees charged for Workshops +
Digital memberships since the replacement of in-person workshops
with virtual workshops in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
decision to charge its members the full Workshops + Digital
membership fee while only providing a virtual workshop experience
violated California state consumer protection laws and gave rise to
claims for breach of contract, fraud, and other tort causes of
action based on the same factual allegations that are the basis for
the breach of contract claim.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages plus injunctive relief to
enjoin the Company from engaging in similar conduct in the future
on behalf of the class members.

On July 30, 2020, the Company filed a notice to remove the matter
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and per the parties' stipulation, on August 7, 2020,
the case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On September 23, 2020, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice.

At the parties' September 29, 2020 preliminary conference, the
court issued an order permitting the plaintiff to either submit her
opposition to the motion to dismiss or file an amended complaint by
October 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint with predominantly the same claims.

The Company filed another motion to dismiss the matter on November
4, 2020. The plaintiff filed her opposition brief on November 19,
2020, and the Company filed its reply brief on November 25, 2020.

The Company believes that this matter is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend it.

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.

WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Consolidated New York Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, has been
granted and the plaintiffs did not appeal.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A., in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in
June 2019.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29, 2019, naming
as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current
officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its affiliates.

A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2019. The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018
secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its
shareholders.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The
complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
the class members. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on October 31, 2019.

On November 30, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in full and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs did not
appeal.

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.

XEROX CORP: Ribbe Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiff in Ribbe v.
Jacobson, et al., filed a notice of appeal of the December 14, 2020
dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First Department.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard,
Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas
Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey
Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince,
Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara
Martinez Tucker.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.

The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the
Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle
shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox,
its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation in connection
with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox, including a consolidated putative class
action, In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation
("XCCSL"), and actions filed by Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm
Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason v. Xerox Corporation, et al.,
against the same defendants as well as, in the first Deason action,
former Xerox Chief Executive Officer Ursula M. Burns.

Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction. Plaintiff also
alleged that the current Board members breached their fiduciary
duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January 14, 2019
shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising from entry
into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleged perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which
defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint.

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
The FAC included many of plaintiff's original allegations regarding
the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well as
additional allegations, including, among others, that the members
of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated plaintiff's
demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to pursue the
claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement announced in
November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by Xerox of its
interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of Fujifilm's
breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox, was unfavorable to Xerox;
and allegations about a potential acquisition by Xerox of HP
similar to those in the Miami Firefighters derivative action
described below.

In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
added as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership and asserted claims against those defendants
and the Board similar to those in Miami Firefighters relating to
the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP stock allegedly with
knowledge of material nonpublic information concerning Xerox's
potential acquisition of HP. In addition to the relief sought in
Ribbe's prior complaint, the FAC sought relief similar to that
sought in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants'
alleged purchases of HP stock.

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe.

At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the
motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff
in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its motion. On July 23,
2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court issued an order
denying the motion and setting certain case deadlines.

Discovery commenced. On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director
defendants, and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to
dismiss. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross-motion
seeking, among other relief, joinder of Xerox Holdings Corporation
as a nominal defendant. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and
plaintiff's cross-motion was completed on October 16, 2020. On
December 14, 2020, following oral argument, the Court issued a
decision and order denying plaintiff's cross-motion and granting
defendants' motions, dismissing the action in its entirety as to
all defendants.

Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing
of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16,
2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or
incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time
period.

On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First
Department.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter.

Xerox said, "At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment
or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.

XL FLEET: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Oct. 2,2020 - Mar. 02, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com./investor-fraud/XL
Contact an Attorney Now: XL@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that: (1) XL's sales pipelines was materially
inflated; (2) XL grossly overstated its customer base; (3) XL's
technology had been materially overstated and did not provide
customers the represented cost savings; and (4) that XL lacks the
supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the
announced timelines.

The truth emerged on Mar. 3, 2021, when analyst Muddy Waters
published a report calling XL "More SPAC Trash." Based on
interviews with former employees, Muddy Waters claimed that
salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines
materially," and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite
low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues." The report
also alleged that "at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were
inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed that XL has "weak technology"
and that "XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly
promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for
XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline."

Then, on Mar. 4, 2021, after XL issued a denial, Muddy Waters
criticized XL's "placeholder response," tweeting, "We spoke to a
fleet manager for one of the companies XL brags about in its
response. He said MPG gains only ~10%, not 25%. He said didn't help
for highway driving. Also his company bought at a deep discount.
Tell. The. Truth."

In response, the Company's share price declined $5.55, or 33% over
three trading days.

Finally, on Mar. 10, 2021, after XL issued a more detailed
response, Muddy Waters released another report, observing that XL
did not deny key allegations, including (1) its inflated pipeline,
(2) overstated customer base, and (3) low customer reorder rates.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving XL misled investors
by exaggerating its order backlog," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are an XL investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding XL
Fleet should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email XL@hbsslaw.com.

XL
-3.51%
Newsfile Corp.
Sat, March 13, 2021, 1:58 AM·3 min read


More content below

XL
-3.51%

San Francisco, California--(Newsfile Corp. - March 12, 2021) -
Hagens Berman urges XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Oct. 2,2020 - Mar. 02, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com./investor-fraud/XL
Contact an Attorney Now: XL@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that: (1) XL's sales pipelines was materially
inflated; (2) XL grossly overstated its customer base; (3) XL's
technology had been materially overstated and did not provide
customers the represented cost savings; and (4) that XL lacks the
supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the
announced timelines.

The truth emerged on Mar. 3, 2021, when analyst Muddy Waters
published a report calling XL "More SPAC Trash." Based on
interviews with former employees, Muddy Waters claimed that
salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines
materially," and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite
low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues." The report
also alleged that "at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were
inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed that XL has "weak technology"
and that "XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly
promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for
XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline."

Then, on Mar. 4, 2021, after XL issued a denial, Muddy Waters
criticized XL's "placeholder response," tweeting, "We spoke to a
fleet manager for one of the companies XL brags about in its
response. He said MPG gains only ~10%, not 25%. He said didn't help
for highway driving. Also his company bought at a deep discount.
Tell. The. Truth."

In response, the Company's share price declined $5.55, or 33% over
three trading days.

Finally, on Mar. 10, 2021, after XL issued a more detailed
response, Muddy Waters released another report, observing that XL
did not deny key allegations, including (1) its inflated pipeline,
(2) overstated customer base, and (3) low customer reorder rates.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving XL misled investors
by exaggerating its order backlog," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are an XL investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding XL
Fleet should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email XL@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

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

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled,
Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation.

A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States
District Court in Utah in January 2019.

This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc.,
alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.

The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the SEC against Rust Rare Coin
and its principal, Gaylen Rust.

During the third quarter of 2020, the Court granted our motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in part, dismissing claims relating
to fraud and fiduciary duty, but allowing a claim for aiding and
abetting conversion to proceed.

The case is in the early discovery phase. Trial has not been
scheduled.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Class Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the civil class action suit entitled, Evans v. CB&T is in the
post-pleading phase.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against us in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf of a class of
up to 50 investors in International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and
seeks to hold the company liable for losses of class members
arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that the company
conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in
furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the company.

In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was heard in early April
2019 with the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's
dismissal.

Zions said, "This case is in the post-pleading phase and trial will
not occur for a substantial period of time."

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related srvices primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Three Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that during the third quarter of 2020, the plaintiffs in three
civil class action lawsuits, Fahmia Inc. v Zions Bancorporation,
et. al., ImpAcct LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, et. al., and Manoloff v.
Bank of America, et. al., voluntarily agreed to dismiss their
actions against the company.

These cases alleged that the company wrongly failed to pay agents
of borrowers receiving loans from the company under the
Government's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) fees that were
allegedly owed to them under the program.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Narrows Lawsuit Over User Privacy, 'Zoombombing'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a U.S. judge dismissed
large parts of a lawsuit accusing Zoom Video Communications Inc of
violating users' privacy rights by sharing personal information
with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn, and letting malevolent
intruders join Zoom meetings in a practice called Zoombombing.

In a decision, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose,
California, dismissed several claims in the proposed class action
including invasion of privacy, negligence, and violations of that
state's consumer and anti-hacking laws. She allowed some
contract-based claims to proceed.

The judge said the plaintiffs failed to prove that Zoom shared or
sold their data without permission, and at best alleged that the
San Jose-based company "disclosed certain other people's data, not
necessarily Plaintiffs' data."

She also said Zoom is "mostly" immune under Section 230 of the
federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms
from liability over user content, for Zoombombing, where outsiders
hijack Zoom meetings and display pornography, use racist language,
or post other disturbing content.

"Appalling as this content is, Zoom's failure to edit or block
user-generated content is the very activity Congress sought to
immunize" under Section 230, which shields online platforms from
liability over user content, Koh wrote.

The plaintiffs want Zoom to improve its security practices, and
damages for past privacy violations. Koh said they can try to
replead the dismissed claims.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. A lawyer for Zoom had no immediate comment.

Zoom's customer base has grown more than fourfold since early last
year as the COVID-19 pandemic forced more people to work and
communicate through their computers at home.

The company's share price has more than tripled since the World
Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Zoom
stock was at $343.50 per share in midday trading on the Nasdaq.

The case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 20-02155. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***