/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210331.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 31, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 59

                            Headlines

3821 BROADWAY: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
5905 AHK: Panosian Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Technicians
68-444 PEREZ: Silva Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage, OT for Dancers
ADIDAS AMERICA: Zarnesky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
AEQUOR HEALTHCARE: Jurado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

AGORA TURKISH: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
AGROMART & SOLLIO: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Denied
ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ALPHA MART: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Monopoly of Print Trade Book Market
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Denying Job Because of Marijuana Drug Test
APACHE CORP: Faces Schwege Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
APACHE CORPORATION: Klein Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline

ARCHER CARE: Shaw et al. Seek Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline
ATOM FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AURATE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Blain Sues Over Failure to Protect Drivers' Info

AVMC LLC: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AXOGEN INC: RSCD's 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed
BANCO SANTANDER: Condemnatory Decision Momentarily Suspended
BARKMAN HONEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAY CLUB: Court Denies Scott's Bid to Intervene in EEOC Class Suit

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Burke Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs Price Fixing
BELLUS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BELLUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BELLUS HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BELLUS HEALTH: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline

BERRY'S RELIABLE: Deducts Insurance Cost from Pay, Dixon Suit Says
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Dismisses Individual and Class Action Claims
BNSF RAILWAY: Bids to Mediate and to Amend in Macias Suit Denied

BRICKELL BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coronavirus Refund Lawsuit
BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving
CALIFORNIA: Bid to Reconsider Montecastro Class Action Status Nixed
CARGURUS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms 2 Decisions in Birchmeier Suit
CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in New York Over IPO
CASPER SLEEP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
CATERPILLAR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Texas Hill's 1st Amended Suit
CELGENE CORPORATION: BCBSM Antitrust Suit Transferred to D.N.J.

CENLAR FSB: Faces Read RESPA Suit Over Failure to Respond to RFI
CENTRA TECH: Investors in Cryptocurrency Scam Ask to Revive Suit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info
CHANGE-N-EFFECT: Eberhart Balks at Unreimbursed Automobile Expenses
CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Chicago Educators Appeal Class-Action Suit

CHOICE HOTELS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jai Sai Class Suit
CLOVER HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Merger Litigation
CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beyers Suit
CRATEJOY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Action in Canada Underway
CYTODYN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action

DILLARD'S INC: Liberto Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
DISNEY STORE: Vicario Files Suit in S.D. Florida
DON & TOD: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
DOUBLE DOWN: Loses Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Claims in Benson
DOUBLE ROBOTICS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DPI INC: Williams Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
E. MISHAN: Nisbett Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users
ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks Unpaid Reporting Time for Route Managers
ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Seresto Flea and Tick Collars
ELEVATE CREDIT: Bid to Nix Suit Related to TFI Operations Pending

ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Sopheary Sanh Class Action
ENDEAVOR LEADS: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Wiley Suit Claims
ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending
ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Albiges Putative Class Suit Pending
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits

ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
ENDO INT'L: Dismissal of Ranitidine Related Suit Under Appeal
ETORO USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says
EVENING EVENTS: Yong Sues Over Absconding Tips & Illegal Kickbacks
EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending

EVOLENT HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Ryan Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Suit Removed to N.D. California
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Remand of Dernoshek to State Court Denied
FIVEFOUR GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FLINT, MI: Rogers' Claims v. LAN & LAD in Flint Water Cases Trimmed
FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
FUBOTV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
FULLY LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GC SERVICES: Blumenfeld Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter

GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Bryan Alleges
GILLENWATER FLOORING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Conspires With Social Casino App Makers, Andrews Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit as Conspirator With Slot Machine Makers
GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit in California Ongoing

GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Charging Commissions on Orders
HELIX ENERGY: Paul Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA
HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Suit Still Stayed
HP INC: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit With Leave to Amend
HUMAN BEES: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

HURRICANE GROUP: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYPER STRUCTURE: Underpays Construction Workers, Castro et al. Say
INFINITY Q: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
INSPIRE UPLIFT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Facing GameStop-Related Class Suits

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff Bid for Class Status Due August 16
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
JHW SERVICES: Underpays Safety Managers, Girling Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline

LIBERTY BROADBAND: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Fund Suit
LIBERTY MEDIA: 9th Cir. Stays Flo & Eddie Class Suit
LIFESPIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckles Suit Alleges
LLOYD JONES: Ramirez Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Maintenance Staff
LOMPOC, CA: Trial Date Approved in Prison COVID-19 Class Lawsuit

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
LYONS DOUGHTY: Seo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
M & J TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASTERCARD INC: Court Will Decide if Class Action Moves Forward

MASTERCARD INC: Resists Compound Interest on $19BB UK Class Action
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Georgia Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Tenn. Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing
MDL 2921: Court Narrows Claims in Allergan BIOCELL Implants Suit
MEISNER'S GOURMET: Palacios et al. Seek Proper OT and Minimum Wages

MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Underpays Production Employees, Solis Claims
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies McGinnis' Bid to Strike Offer
MIRAJ COMMUNICATIONS: Rasheed Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MISSISSIPPI: Supplemental Bid for Injunctive Relief in Amos Denied
MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Salim Suit

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Reed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
MOWI ASA: Faces Farmed Salmon Price-Fixing Class-Action Lawsuit
NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in BCERF Suit Set for April 7
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Goode Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit Ongoing

NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Twyman Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
NEW YORK CITY: Miller Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Underway

OAK VIEW GROUP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OHIO: Dismissal of Entire Claims in Jones v. ODRC in Recommended
ONTRAK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ONTRAK INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California

PACIFIC TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bid to Dismiss/Strike McClellan FDCPA Suit Nixed
PERSONAL TOUCH: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PLUG POWER: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline

RANGE RESOURCES: Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
REAL WATER: Milberg Coleman Files Lawsuit Over Defective Product
RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Nix Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending
RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 3 Deadline

REPRO MED: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
REPRO MED: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway
RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Granted Final Approval

RIO TINTO: Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Mine Expansion Escalates
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
ROBO CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Shop Staff, Amaya Suit Says
ROOT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline

ROOT INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 18 Deadline

SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Montoya
SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Conti Suit Over Housing Market Manipulation
SANDHU PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Time to Appeal Judgment in Anderson Passed
SENIOR RIDE: Paramedics Sue Time-Shaving & Rounding Violations

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SERENE TEFFAHA: Under Investigation by Board Over COVID Lockdown
SONY ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective a7 III Camera Shutters
SQUARE GROVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STAKE CENTER: Walker Files FLSA Suit in Utah

STANDARD CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUPER7 RETAIL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TAFFY TOWN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Holbrook Class Suit
TEXAS: Appeals Court Panel Rejects Inmates' COVID-19 Lawsuit

THANG HOLT: Sundermann Sues Over Unsolicited ATDS-Generated Calls
TICKETSONSALE.COM LLC: Shankula Sues Over Denied Refund Request
TRACE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Gouldie Suit Claims
TRICIDA INC: Facing Pardi Putative Class Suit in California
TS TECH USA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

UKG INC: W.D. Washington Denies Bid to Dismiss/Transfer REI Suit
ULTA BEAUTY: Katavitch Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
UNISEA INC: Ohring Seeks Seafood Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discusses Class Suit Settlement
USG CORP: Stockholder's Bid to File 2nd Amended Class Suit Denied

VELODYNE LIDAR: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VROOM INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline

VROOM INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
W.P. PRODUCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gorrell Suit Claims
WAKPAMNI LAKE: Marquez Files Suit in S.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: $2.9MM Class Settlement in Neal Suit Wins Final OK

WALDEN LOCAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WATERMAN VENTURES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WATFORD HOLDINGS: Facing Canh Putative Class Suit in New York
WELCOME SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Orantes Affirmed

WILLIAM E. NEWMAN: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WINE.COM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WORKHORSE GROUP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Partially Stays Yeomans' Amended Complaint

YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California
ZUM SERVICES: Order Allowing Arbitration in Contreras Suit Flipped
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit
ZYNGA INC: Bid for Initial Arbitration in Chaudhri Suit Granted
ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit

ZYNGA INC: Court Grants Initial Arbitration in Johnson Class Suit
ZYNGA INC: Court OK's Initial Arbitration in Martinez Class Suit
[*] Poultry Companies to Pay $104MM to Settle Class Action Lawsuit

                            *********

3821 BROADWAY: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff v. 3821 BROADWAY CAFE, LLC d/b/a HILLTOP
PARK ALEHOUSE, TARA WHOLLEY and LEIGH CORCORAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02243 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on or around May 15, 2021
to work as a cook for the Defendants' Hilltop Park Alehouse until
his employment with the Defendants was terminated on October 15,
2020.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he was only paid at a straight time hourly rate of
$18.00 per hour despite regularly working more than 40 hours per
week. The Defendants willfully failed to pay him his lawfully
earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.
Moreover, the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with wage
notices and with proper wage statements at all relevant times, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees respectfully requesting that the Court
grant a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the
Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees,
representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them
as provided by law, as well as an award of unpaid overtime
compensation, spread of hours penalties, liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses of the litigation,
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other
relief as the Court deems juts and proper.

3821 Broadway Cafe, LLC d/b/a Hilltop Park Alehouse operates a
restaurant. The Individuals Defendants are the owners and
principals of the restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


5905 AHK: Panosian Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORA PANOSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 5905 AHK, LLC, KEYES MOTORS, INC., and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21VECV00401 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and
double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned
on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid
sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a technician on or about
April 21, 2014 until on or about March 30, 2020.

5905 AHK, LLC is an automobile dealer based in California.

Keyes Motors, Inc. is an automobile dealer based in California.
[BN]

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

68-444 PEREZ: Silva Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage, OT for Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLENE SILVA, an individual; MIKAYLA BELLAMY, an individual; and
CHELLSEE LLOYD, an individual v. 68-444 PEREZ, INC. dba SHOWGIRLS,
a California Corporation; ABDUL WAHAB SHAWKAT, an individual; SAHAR
SHAWKAT, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00397 (C.D. Calif. March 4, 2021) alleges causes
of action against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants
evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the
Plaintiffs' tips.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged violations, the Plaintiffs
seek to recover all tips kept by the Defendants and their
employees, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs contend that during their time being employed by
Defendants, they were denied minimum wage payments and denied
overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify them and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, Texas 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com

ADIDAS AMERICA: Zarnesky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Claudia Zarnesky, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No.
2021-30201-CICI was removed from the Volusia County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
March 25, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-00540-GAP-GJK to
the proceeding.

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

Adidas America Inc. -- https://www.adidas.com/us -- designs and
markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and
accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers,
as well as offers sports collections including basketball,
football, and training shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Johanna Elizabeth Sheehe, Esq.
          SHEEHE & ASSOCIATES, PA
          9830 Southwest 77th Avenue, Suite 215
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 379-3515
          Fax: (305) 379-5404
          Email: jsheehe@sheeheandassociates.com

               - and -

          Phillip J. Sheehe, Esq.
          SHEEHE & ASSOCIATES, PA
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 S Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 379-3515
          Fax: (305) 379-5404
          Email: psheehe@sheeheandassociates.com


AEQUOR HEALTHCARE: Jurado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YOXY JURADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AEQUOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC,
AEQUOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., THERAPY STAFF, LLC, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV06001, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02633 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 off-the-clock work, failure to pay
for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods or provide premium in lieu
thereof, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, failure to
pay reporting wages, failure to pay final wages owed upon discharge
or resignation, failure to provide complete or accurate wage
statements, and failure to keep complete or accurate payroll
records.

Aequor Healthcare Services, LLC is a healthcare services provider
headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Aequor Healthcare Services, Inc. is a healthcare services provider
headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey.

Therapy Staff, LLC is a therapist recruiting and staffing company
doing business in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Michael G. King, Esq.
         Thomas H. Case, Esq.
         HENNELLY & GROSSFELD LLP
         4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 850
         Marina del Rey, CA 90292
         Telephone: (310) 305-2100
         Facsimile: (310) 305-2116
         E-mail: mking@hgla.com
                 tcase@hgla.com

AGORA TURKISH: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ENEDINO BASURTO FRANCO, HUMBERTO GALINDO OLIVERA, WILVER BASURTO
FRANCO, and FIDEL GASPAR AYALA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGORA TURKISH RESTAURANT
INC. (D/B/A AGORA), MUSTAFA SELCUK OZEN A.K.A. SERCHU A.K.A.
CACHANDO, and SEMA OZASLAN OZEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02544
(S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid
spread of hours premium, failure to maintain recordkeeping, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, unlawful tip deductions, and failure to pay wages on a
timely basis.

The Plaintiffs were employed as dishwashers, delivery workers, food
preparers and a cook at the Agora restaurant located at 1565 2nd
Ave., New York, New York at any time between 2014 and 2020.

Agora Turkish Restaurant Inc., doing business as Agora, is a
company that owns and operates a Turkish restaurant located at 1565
2nd Ave., New York, New York. [BN]

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

AGROMART & SOLLIO: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Sollio Agriculture L.P.
("Sollio") and Agronomy Company of Canada ("Agromart") following a
cyber-attack on or about May 27, 2020 (the "Breach"). The claim is
brought on behalf of residents of Canada whose personal information
was collected and stored on the defendants' computer systems, and
that was compromised or accessed in the Breach.

Following the breach, the bank accounts of the plaintiff were
compromised.

The claim alleges that hackers were able to penetrate Agromart and
Sollio's computer systems because their cyber security systems were
substandard. The hackers then extracted the confidential and
sensitive personal information of thousands of Canadian farmers,
and made it accessible to malevolent actors on the deep or dark
web. The claim alleges that the amount of personal information that
the defendants acquired from their customers, and then carelessly
stored, exceeds the amount of information that was reasonably
necessary for their operations.

The claim alleges that Sollio and Agromart were negligent, invaded
the proposed class members' privacy, and breached various statutory
duties, all of which lead to the Breach.

As a result of the Breach, the claim alleges that the class
members' personal information has been compromised and that they
have suffered damages. This class action seeks to obtain
compensation for the losses the proposed class members have
suffered from the Breach.

The proposed class is represented by Foreman & Company Professional
Corporation and Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation. Although
there is no action required at this time from proposed class
members, anyone seeking more information, or who wishes to receive
direct updates or any court-approved notices can request to be
added to a list of potential claimants by emailing
classactions@foremancompany.com.

Contacts:
Jonathan Foreman, Foreman & Company Professional Corporation
519-914-1175
jforeman@foremancompany.com

Margaret Waddell, Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation
1-800-430-3107
marg@waddellphillips.ca [GN]

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the
lawsuit styled DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY J.
AHERN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Gregory J. Ahern is the Alameda County Sheriff-Coroner in
California.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs--current and former
inmates of Santa Rita Jail--bring numerous Section 1983 conditions
of confinement claims against Alameda County, Wellpath Management,
Inc., and Aramark Correctional Services LLC. The Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction seeking redress regarding the prison's
allegedly inadequate and unsanitary food is now pending before the
Court.

Alameda County contracts with Aramark to provide food services at
the Jail and other jail facilities (Third Amended Complaint
("TAC")). The kitchen at the Jail is staffed primarily by prisoners
that work under the supervision of Aramark. In recent years,
Alameda County and Aramark have overseen a prisoner food budget
reduction of 25%--$1.65 million. These budget reductions have had a
devastating effect on the quality and quantity of food at the
prison. Additionally, kitchen workers are not consistently tested
for communicable diseases prior to beginning work in the kitchen.

The Plaintiffs challenge the poor kitchen sanitation and food
contamination at the Jail. They allege that there are numerous
other instances where prisoners have found dead animals, foreign
objects, or animal droppings in their food. They also allege that
grievances regarding food issues have been denied and the
Defendants have not changed their procedures or improved sanitation
practices.

In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that Alameda County and Aramark
were placed on notice of the rat infestation and food sanitation
issues because the female prisoners at the Jail filed a lawsuit
that mirrors many of their claims, Mohrbacher, et al. v. Alameda
County Sheriff's Office, et al., 3:18-00050JD (filed January 4,
2018).

On August 26, 2020, there was an inspection of the kitchen, but the
Plaintiffs say the prison officials purposefully steered inspectors
away from the scullery and the kitchen sanitation procedures were
not appropriately inspected. The Defendants have allegedly failed
to fix, correct, or take affirmative action to remedy the problem
of animals in the kitchen.

The Plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action on
November 12, 2019, but did not serve the Defendants until after
filing their amended complaint on May 7, 2020. On the same day, the
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, they filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order that the Court subsequently denied.
While the motion for a temporary restraining order was pending, the
County Defendants, Wellpath, and Aramark each filed separate
motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part.

The Court denied the motion as to the Defendants' exhaustion
argument but found that the Plaintiffs had failed to adequately
allege their myriad constitutional claims challenging 20 separate
conditions of confinement at the Jail. The Plaintiffs were granted
leave to amend (except with respect to their Fifth Amendment
claim). The Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed a second amended
complaint repleading all of their conditions of confinement claims
(except for the Fifth Amendment claim) and the Defendants again
moved to dismiss.

While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary injunction against Alameda County and
Aramark regarding the food issues at the Jail. The Plaintiffs ask
that the Court requires the Defendants to:

   (1) Implement and maintain a jail kitchen that is constructed,
       equipped and operated in a clean and sanitary manner and
       is free of animals, birds, rodents, insects and vermin;

   (2) All dishware and trays will have residual food scrapped
       off, washed, rinsed and sanitized per California Code and
       no dishware and tray will be reused unless said dishware
       and tray is free of food residue and has been washed,
       rinsed and sanitized;

   (3) Institute procedures and quality control processes to
       ensure that all food served is edible, including:

       a. No spoiled food;

       b. No food with foreign objects--particularly non-food
          objects;

       c. No food which has been contaminated by animals, birds,
          rodents, insects and vermin; and

       d. All food is properly handled, refrigerated and heated,
          without excessive heating;

   (4) Quality controls are implemented to insure that trays meet
       portion size and has all items called for in the menu;

   (5) Food production adheres to menus; and

   (6) Special diet needs are met.

The motion for preliminary injunction is now fully briefed and
Alameda County has raised an objection to the Plaintiffs' reply.

Two days after the preliminary injunction motion was filed, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. As relevant in the matter, the motion was denied as to the
Plaintiffs' claims regarding the unsanitary and contaminated
condition of the food, but was granted as to complaints about the
food's nutritional content with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs
filed the now operative Third-Amended Complaint after the motion
for a preliminary injunction was fully briefed. They did not plead
any new food-related claims, including any claims about the food's
nutritional content.

As a threshold matter, the County argues that the Plaintiffs have
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Under the PLRA, "no action will be
brought with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted."

The Plaintiffs' TAC alleges that prisoners have attempted, but were
thwarted, from exhausting their claims regarding the food
sanitation issues, and provides specific examples where the
Defendants failed to accept grievances, respond to grievances, and
properly document issues raised by prisoners.

Given the Plaintiffs' allegations that they attempted to exhaust,
but were thwarted, and the County's failure to identify
administrative remedies that the prisoners did not exhaust, the
County has not met its burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiffs'
claims are barred for failure to exhaust under the PLRA, Magistrate
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley opines.

The Plaintiffs' motion raises three primary concerns: inadequate
kitchen cleanliness, contaminated food, and food that lacks
sufficient nutritional value.

Judge Corley notes that there is no dispute that the County--not
Aramark--is the party responsible for kitchen pest control. The
County offers evidence that it has taken numerous steps to ensure
that the kitchen remains free of vermin and outside animals.

In August 2020, the kitchen and bakery passed its Environmental
Health Inspection. The County Department of Environmental Health
verified that the Jail has a pest control service, and the facility
was overall clean and well run--it passed inspection without
further remedy required.

In light of the County's evidence, Judge Corley finds that the
Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits.
While there clearly was a pest problem, at a minimum, under prong
three of the deliberate indifference standard and on this record
the Court cannot conclude that the Defendants have not put
sufficient measures in place. Indeed, in light of these measures,
at oral argument the Plaintiffs confirmed that they have narrowed
the preliminary injunctive relief they seek on this issue to
construction of a solid door to the kitchen.

Given that the Jail kitchen passed inspection, and the record
evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the Jail door violates
state law.

As with the vermin/pest issue, given the state of record the Court
does not find that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on
the merits of their claim that Aramark's handling of food trays
cleanliness is constitutionally deficient.

The County has also responded that it has instituted several
policies and procedures to ensure that the food service meets all
the required health and safety regulations.

Given the procedures that Aramark and the County have put in place,
the Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits
of their claim that the Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to their health and safety needs because of food
contamination at the Jail, Judge Corley holds.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims of constitutional harm due to the inadequate nutritional
value of the food, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend to the
extent that the Plaintiffs can allege specific facts suggesting
that the nutritional content of the food is constitutionally
deficient. The Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint to allege
that the nutritional content of the prison's food was
constitutionally deficient. Furthermore, at oral argument, the
Plaintiffs confirmed that they were no longer seeking a preliminary
injunction on this ground.

Given the Defendants' evidence--which has not been tested through
discovery--the Plaintiffs have not satisfied all of the elements of
the deliberate indifference test required by the Fourteenth
Amendment on any of their claims; therefore, the Plaintiffs have
not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and have not raised
"serious questions" about their success on the merits, Judge Corley
opines.

Shortly after oral argument on the preliminary injunction motion,
the Plaintiffs filed a request for an evidentiary hearing. The
Court agrees that resolution of the issues raised by the motion
will require resolution of disputes of fact; however, such disputes
cannot be adequately resolved without the benefit of discovery and
testing of each party's evidence. Further, it may be a circumstance
where consolidation of a preliminary injunction motion with a trial
on the merits is required. As discussed at oral argument, written
discovery can commence on claims that survived the motion to
dismiss, as well as any agreed-to inspections of the premises.

For the reasons explained in the Order, the motions for a
preliminary injunction and an evidentiary hearing are denied.

The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 71, 92, 94.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 1, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2veestwt from Leagle.com.


ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET, INC., STEVE W. BACON,
JAMES V. BACON SR., NANCY REYNOLDS, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11667 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act 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 provide rest breaks, failure
to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses,
breach of contract, and failure to provide pay and personnel
records.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Internet manager.

Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc. is a Chevrolet dealer based in
Glendale, California. [BN]

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

ALPHA MART: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Mart Holdings
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Alpha Mart Holdings LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02595 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Alpha Mart -- https://www.alphamarts.com/ -- is an online shopping
store for camping, outdoor, patio, home and kitchen and other
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Monopoly of Print Trade Book Market
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOKENDS & BEGINNINGS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; HACHETTE BOOK
GROUP, INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C.; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING
GROUP, LLC; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02584 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly restrain
competition in the sale of print trade books through highly
restrictive most favored nation clauses (MFNs) in their
distribution agreements. These anticompetitive provisions ensure
that no rival bookseller can differentiate itself from, or
otherwise compete with, Amazon on price or product availability in
the sale of print trade books. The anticompetitive MFNs allegedly
allow the Defendants to fix wholesale prices, create a barrier to
market entry for new competitors, and hinder the expansion of
existing competitors in the retail market for the sale of print
trade books.

Bookends & Beginnings LLC is a company that operates a bookstore in
Evanston, Illinois.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer with its principal
headquarters in Seattle, Washington.

Hachette Book Group, Inc. is a trade publisher with its principal
place of business in New York, New York.

HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. is a trade publisher with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.

Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC is a trade publisher with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.

Penguin Random House LLC is a trade publisher with its principal
place of business in New York, New York.

Simon & Schuster, Inc. is a trade publisher with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Nathaniel Tarnor, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         322 8th Avenue, Suite 802
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 752-5455
         Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
         E-mail: Nathant@hbsslaw.com

                  - and –

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

                  - and –

         Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
         Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
         Paul E. Slater, Esq.
         Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
         Jeffery Bergman, Esq.
         SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
         55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60603
         E-mail: ekelly@sperling-law.com
                 jvanek@sperling-law.com
                 pes@sperling-law.com
                 arodriguez@sperling-law.com
                 jbergman@sperling-law.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Denying Job Because of Marijuana Drug Test
-------------------------------------------------------------------
pre-employ.com reports that a resident of New York City is suing
Amazon for allegedly rescinding a job offer due to testing positive
for marijuana on a drug test. The person filing the lawsuit claims
that he was offered a position as a package sorter in November 2020
and rejected due to a positive drug test.

According to the lawsuit, the employee took a drug test as a
condition of employment with Amazon. After completing the test, he
was not contacted back for a month until he called them and was
told he had tested positive for marijuana, and as a result, they
were no longer interested in hiring him.

The lawsuit was filed with the Brooklyn Federal Court claiming that
Amazon had violated the New York City Human Rights Law. This law
forbids employers from conducting pre-employment drug testing,
except under exceptional cases such as when employees will operate
heavy machinery.

The applicant's lawyer claims that Amazon has rejected more than
100 prospective employees due to their testing policies. As a
result, he has filed the lawsuit as a possible class action. [GN]

APACHE CORP: Faces Schwege Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SCHWEGEL, 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-00722 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) is a federal securities
class action against Apache and certain of its officers for
violations of the federal securities laws alleging 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.

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 "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's operations and financial health, including
the viability and profitability of a purported large oil-and-gas
resource play in the Permian Basin called Alpine High.
Specifically, the 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.

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

Then, on October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the
Company. In response to this announcement, Apache's stock price
dropped $1.16 per share, or approximately 5%, from a close of
$23.23 per share on October 24, 2019, to close at $22.07 per share
on October 25, 2019.

Apache's stock traded as low as $20.57 per share on October 25,
2019, an intra-day drop of approximately 11.5%, prompting Bloomberg
to issue a story titled "Apache Executive's Departure Sparks Worst
Rout Since 2016."

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

A few days later, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an
article pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged
amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among
large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and
that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its
"financial health isn't great." The article observed that low gas
prices had "forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas
rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's
production growth." The article noted that "Apache also reduced
Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion." In response to this news and
other investment research downgrades, Apache's stock price fell
$3.61 per share, or approximately 45%, over two trading days, from
a close of $8.07 per share on Friday, March 13, 2020, to close at
$4.46 per share on March 17, 2020.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Apache common stock during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and false and misleading statements and/or material
omissions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

APACHE CORPORATION: Klein Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in APA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=14183&from=5

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

Shareholders have until April 26, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the APA lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

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

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

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AQST) between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 30, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Aquestive 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 Aquestive class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30, 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 4 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) data included in the Libervant
Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters ("Libervant")
New Drug Application ("NDA") submission showed a lower drug
exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (2) the
foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval
prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration would not approve the Libervant NDA in its
current form; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Aquestive class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contacts
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]

ARCHER CARE: Shaw et al. Seek Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TINA SHAW and BRANDY NICOLE DAY, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHER CARE HOMES, L.L.C.,
and SHARON ARCHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00221 (M.D. Tenn.,
March 15, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as caregivers,
alleges that the Defendants denied them and other similarly
situated caregivers of overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a workweek. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a
workweek, they were only paid straight time up to 40 hours of work
using ACH's payroll account, and even deducted taxes on these
payments. For the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, they
were paid separately using a different ACH account, and no taxes
withheld from these payments, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have violated the
provisions of Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and
215(a)(2), by not paying its workers' overtime.

On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated caregivers,
the Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
litigations costs, reasonable attorney' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.

Archer Care Homes, L.L.C. is a provider established in Lebanon,
Tennessee specializing in residential treatment facility, mental
retardation and/or development disabilities. Sharon Archer was an
owner, manager and/or executive officer of ACH. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Rustman, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: rrustman@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against AstraZeneca PLC
("AstraZeneca" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired AstraZeneca securities between May 21, 2020 and November
20, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/azn.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) initial clinical trials for
AZD1222, the Company's coronavirus vaccine hopeful, had suffered
from a critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial
number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage;
(2) clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of
disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments,
undermining the validity and import of the conclusions that could
be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient
populations; (3) certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222
had not received a second dose at the designated time points, but
rather received the second dose up to several weeks after the dose
had been scheduled to be delivered according to the original trial
design; (4) AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number
of patients over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for
AZD1222, despite this patient population being particularly
vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority
target market for the drug; (5) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for
AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in
execution, and a failure to properly coordinate and communicate
with regulatory authorities and the general public; (6) as a result
of the foregoing, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been
conducted in accordance with industry best practices and acceptable
standards and the data and conclusions that could be derived from
the clinical trials was of limited utility; and (7) as a result of
the foregoing, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial
use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/azn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
AstraZeneca you have until March 29, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

ATOM FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atom Finance, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Atom Finance, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02599 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Atom Finance -- https://atom.finance/ -- is a fintech that provides
stock market and portfolio analysis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AURATE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AURATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02547-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://auratenewyork.com/ allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text); (2) links are not
properly labeled and are not tagged; (3) form controls have no
label; (4) tables are not labeled with row and column headers; (5)
frames do not have a title; (6) button elements are empty and have
no programmatically determined name; (7) form controls have no
label and no programmatically determined name; (8) forms have
fields without label elements or title attributes; (9) webpages
have duplicate IDs, which cause problems with screen readers; (10)
radio button groups are not contained in a fieldset element; (11)
form field labels are not unique on a page or enclosed in a
fieldset with a legend that makes the label unique; (12) headings
are not nested correctly and at least twenty; (13) headings are
empty; and (14) webpages have markup errors.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Aurate, LLC is an online jewelry retailer headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]

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

AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Blain Sues Over Failure to Protect Drivers' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCINE BLAIN, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02596 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy,
negligence, and violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
and California's Consumer Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the vehicle
registration records that contain personal information of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated drivers in California
following a data breach and ransomware attack on its systems in
February 2021. The Defendant's failure to maintain and comply with
security standards allowed their customers' personal information to
be compromised. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered harm and loss of privacy, and will continue to suffer
future harm, resulting from the data breach, the suit alleges.

Automatic Funds Transfer Services, Inc. is a payment and data
processing company with a principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         ROBERT AHDOOT, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505-4521
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

                 - and –

         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         135 Chestnut Ridge Road
         Montvale, NJ 07645
         Telephone: (201) 391-7000
         Facsimile: (201) 307-0186
         E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                 memert@kgglaw.com

AVMC LLC: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC
and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against AVMC,
LLC dba Toyota of Lancaster ("Toyota of Lancaster") for failure to
provide compensation for all hours worked. The Toyota of Lancaster
class action lawsuit, Case No. 21STCV07885, is currently pending in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. A
copy of the Complaint can be read here.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals who are or
previously were employed by Toyota of Lancaster as commission-based
and/or piece-rate employees in California from February 25, 2017 to
the present. These Toyota of Lancaster employees were entitled to
separate hourly compensation for time spent performing all
non-sales related tasks directed by Defendant during their work
shifts, including, but not limited to, weekly sales meetings, and
are entitled to one hour of pay for their rest periods.

According to the lawsuit, Toyota of Lancaster allegedly engaged in
unfair competition in violation of California Labor Code Sections
Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 210, 226.7, 512, 558, 1194, 1197,
1197.1, 1198 & 2802 by failing to: (1) provide meal and rest
periods; (2) pay minimum wages; (4) provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (5) reimburse employees for required expenses; and (6)
provide wages when due.

If you would like to know more about the Toyota of Lancaster
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619)
255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment and
labor law firms with offices located in California that dedicate
their practices to helping employees and consumers fight back
against employers and corporations for unfair employment practices.
If you need help with collecting unpaid wages, wrongful
termination, discrimination, harassment, and other unlawful
workplace conduct, contact one of their attorneys. [GN]

AXOGEN INC: RSCD's 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF
DETROIT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AXOGEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-69-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Axogen develops and markets surgical products used to treat
peripheral nerve injuries.  Beginning in November 2017, Axogen
sought to raise capital from investors by conducting a secondary
public offering of its common stock.  In Axogen's offering
materials and in other statements to investors, Axogen provided
estimates of the size of the market for its products, which it
stated were based on information in a United States Department of
Health and Human Services report, an article by Kurt Brattain,
M.D., and an article by James Noble.

On Dec. 18, 2018, Seligman Investments, a "short seller," which
stood to gain by a drop in the price of Axogen stock, released a
report criticizing Axogen's statements and concluding that the
market for Axogen's products was a fraction of what Axogen
estimated.  Following release of the Seligman report, Axogen's
stock price declined more than 38 percent over a short period of
trading.

The Plaintiff, a retirement system with over $3 billion in assets
under management, brought the putative class action on behalf of
itself and other purchasers against Axogen, certain of its
officers, and other Defendants, alleging that the Defendants'
statements violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Plaintiff pointed to the Seligman
analysis, an analysis by an expert consulting firm, and statements
of a confidential witness, identified as "CW1," as demonstrating
that Defendants' representations relating to the size of the market
were false.  In its claims under the 1934 Act, the Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendants acted with actual knowledge of the
representations' falsity or recklessly.

On April 21, 2020, the Court entered a detailed order dismissing
the first amended complaint, primarily on the ground that the
challenged statements were "forward-looking statements" under the
1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  Because
the statements were accompanied by sufficient cautionary language
and the complaint lacked allegations that the Defendants knew the
statements were false, they were protected by the safe harbor
provided by the PSLRA.  The Court also ruled that the allegations
were insufficient to support a strong inference of the scienter
required for claims under the 1934 Act.  The Court allowed the
Plaintiff to amend, and the Plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint on June 22, 2020.  The Defendants once again have moved
to dismiss.

The Court's prior Order discussed the application of these
standards to each representation challenged by the Plaintiff and
concluded that dismissal was required.  Judge Barber holds that the
same holds true for the second amended complaint. The prior Order,
for example, concluded that the challenged statements were
forward-looking and fell within the PSLRA safe harbor.  The second
amended complaint does not allege any new or different
representations by the Defendants.  Nor does the Plaintiff point to
any new controlling authority with respect to the PSLRA issues the
Court found dispositive.

The Court also previously concluded that the Plaintiff had failed
to allege facts supporting the "strong inference" of scienter
required by the PSLRA.  The Plaintiff's second amended complaint
includes additional allegations potentially relating to the
Defendants' scienter.  The complaint, for example, sets forth
opinions by four additional former Axogen employees identified as
confidential witnesses that Axogen's market estimates were
inflated.  But there is no allegation of fact suggesting that these
opinions or other information casting doubt on the Defendants'
estimates were communicated to the individuals responsible for
issuing the challenged statements prior to their release.

Under the principles and authorities discussed in the prior Order,
Judge Barber concludes that the second amended complaint's
allegations fail to support the "strong inference" of scienter
required to avoid dismissal.

As a separate basis for dismissal the Defendants argue that the
second amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Omnicare,
Inc. v Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S.
175 (2015).  For a statement of opinion to be actionable due to a
material omission, Omnicare requires a plaintiff to allege specific
facts about the speaker's knowledge or the nature of the speaker's
inquiry the omission of which renders the statement misleading,
based on what a reasonable investor would infer about the speaker's
knowledge or inquiry.  Whether statements are misleading by
omission is determined under an objective standard that takes into
account the context in which the statements appear, including
accompanying cautionary statements, as well as any customs and
practices in the industry.

Judge Barber holds that the allegations in the second amended
complaint fail to meet the Omnicare standard.  There is no
allegation that the Defendants, at the time they issued the
challenged estimates, possessed the data or analyses that the
Plaintiff now argues show the Defendants' estimates were incorrect.
Nor does the Plaintiff allege omitted facts regarding the nature
of the inquiry conducted by Defendants in creating the estimates
that would render the statements misleading to reasonable
investors.  As such, the second amended complaint is also due to be
dismissed pursuant to Omnicare.

The Plaintiff confirmed at the Feb. 25, 2021, hearing that it did
not seek leave to further amend the complaint and that, in the
event of dismissal, it would stand on the complaint as pled for
purposes of appeal.

Judge Barber therefore granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  He dismissed the second
amended complaint with prejudice.  The Clerk is directed to
terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6esctp3b from Leagle.com.


BANCO SANTANDER: Condemnatory Decision Momentarily Suspended
------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
obtained a momentary suspension of the condemnatory decision.

The labor Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico
Federal do Trabalho) filed a class action against Santander Brasil
alleging that the company's management of its employees is
inappropriate.

Specifically, the class action alleges that the company apply
constant pressure to meet abusive, excessive and continuously
increased goals, make excessive and inappropriate demands, impose
excessive workloads resulting in physical and psychological strain,
make constant threats of dismissal for failure to meet targets,
have a staff too small to deal with the existing workload, run an
organizational model based on stress and humiliation, and that, as
a result, the company had allegedly caused irreparable damage to
employees' physical and mental health as a result of which the
public social security system has suffered losses of more than R$90
million due to the 7,677 accident-related and social security
benefits granted to employees from 2010 to 2015.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office's claim demands that the
company refrain from subjecting employees to abusive targets, to
reduce the target levels, refrain from increasing targets by more
than 10% per year, institute a quarterly targeting system, and
refrain from adopting targets for operational areas.

There is also a claim for the payment of indemnity for collective
moral damages in an amount not less than R$460 million and that the
company be prohibited from contracting with the government for 10
years. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office is also demanding
that a fine of R$500 thousand be set for any breach by the company
of the obligations imposed on us following the judgment.

The lower court ruling prohibited submitting employees to abusive
targets. It also determined that the targets should only be
reviewed annually and that their annual variation should be subject
to collective bargaining between Santander Brasil and the unions.

The ruling also prohibited setting targets for employees in the
back office and control departments and required payment of
indemnity for collective moral damages in the amount of R$274.4
million, in addition to imposition of certain daily fines.

Finally, the ruling determined that the company is required to
implement a new experimental target program under the terms
provided for in the decision from January 1, 2020.

The company appealed this decision and obtained a momentary
suspension of the condemnatory decision.

Banco Santander said, "We estimate the risk of loss as remote."

Headquartered in Sao Paolo, Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. provides
banking products and services in Brazil and internationally.

BARKMAN HONEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barkman Honey, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barkman Honey, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02593 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Barkman Honey -- http://www.barkmanhoney.com/-- is a certified
honey distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAY CLUB: Court Denies Scott's Bid to Intervene in EEOC Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff v. BAY CLUB FAIRBANKS RANCH, LLC d/b/a FAIRBANKS RANCH
COUNTRY CLUB; FAIRBANKS RANCH COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-CV-1853 W (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Thomas J. Whelan of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies
the motion to intervene or, alternatively, for mediation, filed by
Charging Party Sidney Scott, acting in pro per.

The lawsuit stems from a charge of discrimination filed by Scott in
August 2016.  After investigating her charge and efforts at
conciliation failed, on Aug. 8, 2018, Plaintiff EEOC filed the
lawsuit to correct unlawful employment practices based on sex and
to provide relief to Scott and a class of individuals who were
adversely affected by such practices.

The Complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 by unlawfully subjecting Scott and the class of
similarly aggrieved individuals to sexual harassment, including a
hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment, because of
their sex (female).  The Complaint further alleged Defendants
violated Title VII by unlawfully subjecting some Claimants to
constructive discharge and retaliation.

The employment practices at issue occurred at the Fairbanks Ranch
Country Club facility, located in Rancho Santa Fe, California.  The
original Complaint named Defendants Fairbanks Ranch, which operated
the facility before July 2016, and Bay Club, which acquired the
facility in approximately July 2016.  The EEOC subsequently filed a
First Amended Complaint to add The Bay Clubs Company, LLC, which
owns Defendant Bay Club and owns or operates at least 20 other
premier resort-style facilities/clubs.

On Feb. 10, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a
consent decree, which would resolve the litigation.  The same day,
Scott filed the pending motion to intervene.

Ms. Scott seeks to intervene because she contends the EEOC
"committed fraud upon the Court by prosecuting and portraying a
narrative that is false" because "important aspects of the
complaint that she made were omitted from litigation.  The
"important aspects" omitted from the litigation involve her
allegations that she was also subjected to racial discrimination,
paid the least amount of the employees, forced to drink alcohol as
an "underage" as part of her job, and sexually attacked and
harassed by the general manager.  Scott also seeks to prevent the
EEOC from paying her less than 60% of any monetary compensation
from the pending settlement, and belatedly raises "concerns" with a
Consent Decree approved on Dec. 2, 2019.

Judge Whelan notes that though Title VII expressly provides an
aggrieved employee with a right to intervene, the intervention
request must still be timely.  The Ninth Circuit considers three
criteria in determining whether a motion to intervene is timely:
"(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to
intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason
for and the length of the delay."  In considering these factors,
however, the court must bear in mind that any substantial lapse of
time weighs heavily against intervention.  Because timeliness is
the threshold requirement, the court need not reach any other issue
if it finds the motion was not timely.

Stage of the Proceeding

Judge Whelan holds that Scott could not be seeking to intervene at
a later stage in the litigation.  The lawsuit was filed in August
2018.  Since then, the parties have vigorously litigated the matter
and are on the eve of settlement.  In short, the record confirms
that by the time Scott filed her motion, "a lot of water had
already passed underneath the litigation bridge."  Accordingly, the
Judge finds this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding Scott's
motion to intervene is untimely.

Prejudice to the Parties

Ms. Scott contends she should be allowed to intervene because the
EEOC omitted from the lawsuit her claims regarding racial
discrimination, being forced to drink alcohol as an "underage," and
being sexually attacked and harassed by the general manager.  The
EEOC contends allowing Scott to intervene would prejudice the
current parties, Fairbanks Ranch, and the other Claimants.

Judge Whelan agrees with the EEOC.  He holds that allowing Scott to
intervene in order to raise new claims would require reopening
discovery, and prolong a case that has been litigated since 2018
and is on the verge of settlement.  In addition, Scott's
intervention would prejudice the other Claimants.  Finally,
allowing Scott to intervene in order to object to the Fairbanks
Ranch Consent Decree would prejudice Defendant Fairbanks Ranch, who
has already been dismissed and ceased litigating.  Moreover, the
other Claimants who received monetary compensation from the
settlement in approximately December 2019 could also suffer
prejudice.  For all these reasons, the Judge finds this factor
weighs heavily in favor of finding Scott's motion to intervene is
untimely.

Reason for and Length of Delay

Ms. Scott contends she moved to intervene as soon as she learned
the EEOC did not represent her interests.  According to her, the
EEOC does not represent her interests because it is "prosecuting
and portraying a false narrative" by omitting "important aspects"
of her administrative claim from the case, such as the racial
discrimination she endured.

Judge Whelan finds Scott's argument unpersuasive for a number of
reasons.  Even before the lawsuit was filed, Scott knew or should
have known the EEOC was not pursuing the "important aspects" of her
administrative complaint.  In addition to the EEOC's Determination
letter, the Complaint has been on the public docket since the
lawsuit was filed in August 2018, and the First Amended Complaint
has been on the docket since Aug. 5, 2020.  For all these reasons,
the Judge finds this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding
Scott's motion to intervene was not timely.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Whelan concludes that the evidence
establishes Scott either knew or should have known by no later than
the Fall of 2019 that the EEOC omitted the "important aspects" of
her claim from the lawsuit.  Moreover, given the significant amount
of litigation that has occurred, allowing Scott to intervene after
the parties have agreed to settle the case would prejudice the
current parties, dismissed Defendant Fairbanks Ranch and
potentially other Claimants.  Accordingly, Scott's motion is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4a4tbbzd from Leagle.com.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Burke Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM BURKE FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA,
INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED
CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN  AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01049 (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2021) arises from
an unlawful agreement between the Defendants to artificially
increase and fix the prices of seeds and crop protection chemicals
such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides (Crop Inputs) used
by farmers.

The Defendants are manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
Crop Inputs.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated (the "Classes"), seeks to recover
injunctive relief, treble damages, and other relief as appropriate,
based on the Defendants violation of federal and state antitrust
laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment laws of the several States.

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

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have established a
secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices
inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of their
conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market information,
including transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison
shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and information
about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know
if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds
repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          Jessica D. Khan, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
          One South Broad Street, 23 rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com
                  jkhan@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NAST LAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

BELLUS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BLU). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.

Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU)

Class Period: September 5, 2019 to July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

Bellus is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead
product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of
chronic cough (one that lasts over eight weeks) and other afferent
hypersensitization-related disorders.

Before markets opened on July 6, 2020, defendants revealed the
truth about BLU5937's efficacy. They announced that the drug had
failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other
treatments had not worked. Specifically, BLU-5937 was not
significantly better than a placebo at reducing the frequency at
which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a "clinically
meaningful and highly statistically significant" effect only on a
subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32 per day),
so the Company was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on those
patients.

On this news, indicating that Bellus had fallen even further behind
Merck in developing an FDA-approved treatment for refractory
chronic cough, the Company's stock price plummeted over 75% to
close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that defendants'
scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Bellus's
business, operations, drug products, drug product development,
competition, and present and future business prospects; (ii)
facilitated the Company's September 2019 public offering
("Offering"); (iii) created artificial demand for the Bellus common
shares sold in the Offering; (iv) enabled the Company to receive
approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of Bellus
common stock in the Offering; and (v) caused Plaintiff and the
Class to purchase Bellus publicly traded common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

For more information on the Bellus Health class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BLU

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

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

BELLUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ:BLU) securities
between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Cachia v. BELLUS Health Inc., No.
21-cv-02278, and is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The BELLUS
Health class action lawsuit charges BELLUS Health and certain of
its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased BELLUS Health securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the BELLUS Health
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
BELLUS Health class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
in any potential future recovery of the BELLUS Health class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the BELLUS Health class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
BELLUS Health class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the BELLUS Health
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May
17, 2021.

BELLUS Health is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose
lead product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the
treatment of chronic cough (one that lasts over eight weeks) and
other afferent hypersensitization-related disorders. Merck & Co.
has been leading the race to develop the first U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") approved treatment for chronic cough. In
March 2020, Merck announced that its experimental drug, Gefapixant,
had met its primary endpoint in two Phase 2 studies. However, side
effects of taste alteration or loss of taste were reported in 80%
of the patients on Gefapixant.

The BELLUS Health class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants touted that because BLU-5937 was more
selective than Gefapixant, it would come with a better safety
profile and would not have the side effects of taste alteration or
loss of taste. As a result, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit
alleges that defendants misled investors into believing that the
Phase 2 study for BELLUS Health's BLU-5937 would demonstrate the
same level of efficacy as, but a higher level of safety than,
Merck's Gefapixant. However, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit
alleges that defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that BLU-5937
had a much higher risk of failing to demonstrate efficacy for
chronic cough. Accordingly, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit
alleges that despite Merck's successful Phase 2 study, BLU-5937 had
a high risk of failing its Phase 2 study.

The BELLUS Health class action lawsuit further alleges that
defendants' scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding
BELLUS Health's business, operations, drug products, drug product
development, competition, and present and future business
prospects; (ii) facilitated BELLUS Health's September 2019 public
offering ("Offering"); (iii) created artificial demand for the
BELLUS Health common shares sold in the Offering; (iv) enabled
BELLUS Health to receive approximately $70 million in net proceeds
from the sale of BELLUS Health common stock in the Offering; and
(v) caused investors to purchase BELLUS Health publicly traded
common stock at artificially inflated prices.

Then, on July 6, 2020, defendants announced that BLU-5937 had
failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other
treatments had not worked. Specifically, defendants revealed that
BLU-5937 was not significantly better than a placebo at reducing
the frequency at which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a
"clinically meaningful and highly statistically significant" effect
only on a subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32
per day), so BELLUS Health was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on
those patients. On this news, BELLUS Health's stock price fell
approximately 75%, damaging investors.

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

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

BELLUS HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU)
between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased BELLUS 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 BELLUS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2058.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 17, 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 information that resulted in a scheme
that: (1) deceived the investing public regarding BELLUS's
business, operations, drug products, drug product development,
competition, and present and future business prospects; (2)
facilitated the Company's September 2019 public offering
("Offering"); (3) created artificial demand for the BELLUS common
shares sold in the Offering; (4) enabled the Company to receive
approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of BELLUS
common stock in the Offering; and (5) caused purchases of BELLUS
publicly traded common stock at artificially inflated prices. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the BELLUS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2058.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

BELLUS HEALTH: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against BELLUS Health
Inc. ("BELLUS" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: BLU) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021.

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. BELLUS misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose that BLU-5937's "high selectivity" contributed to the drug
potentially being less efficacious and thus likely unable to meet
the primary endpoint of the Company's Phase 2 study. As a result,
when Defendants announced before markets opened on July 6, 2020,
that BLU-5937 had failed the Phase 2 study, the Company's stock
price plummeted over 75% on heavy trading volume. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about BELLUS, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

BERRY'S RELIABLE: Deducts Insurance Cost from Pay, Dixon Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCINE DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERRY'S RELIABLE RESOURCES, LLC, RHONDA
WILLIAMS, RAEON WILLIAMS, and TYESE BERRY, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00596-WBV-MBN (E.D. La., March 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Louisiana Final Wage Payment Act by illegally deducting
the cost of worker's compensation insurance from the Plaintiff's
pay.

The Plaintiff worked as a direct service worker for Defendants
until January 2021.

Berry's Reliable Resources, LLC is a home health care service
provider in Metairie, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
         Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
         JACKSON+JACKSON
         201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Telephone: (504) 599-5953
         Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
         E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                 mjackson@jackson-law.net

BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action
suit initiated by Elissa Roberts remains pending.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11
and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed
with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering (IPO).


On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under
Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and extending the class period to September 16, 2019.

On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding claims under the Securities Act. The second amended
complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the restatement and,
as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends the class period
through February 12, 2020.

On July 1, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and are waiting for a ruling on that motion.

Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we
intend to defend this action vigorously. Because this action is in
the early stages, we are unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation at this time and accordingly are not able to estimate
any range of reasonably possible losses."

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the consolidated
Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action suit remains stayed.

In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its July 25, 2018 initial public offering (IPO) alleging violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the company's
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection
with its IPO.

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019. These cases have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed with the court
on September 12, 2019. On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay
the lawsuit pending the federal district court action.

On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation
mentioned below.

Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we
intend to defend this action vigorously. Given that the case is
still in its early stages, we are unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible losses."

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Dismisses Individual and Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Francisco Sanchez
dismissed the individual and class action claims without prejudice,
leaving one cause of action for enforcement of the Private Attorney
Generals Act .

In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging
certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company
engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to
add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

On November 30, 2020, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and the motion was to be heard on March 5, 2021.

On February 24, 2021, Mr.Sanchez dismissed the individual and class
action claims without prejudice, leaving one cause of action for
enforcement of the Private Attorney Generals Act .

Given that the case is still in its early stages, we are unable to
estimate any range of reasonably possible losses.

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BNSF RAILWAY: Bids to Mediate and to Amend in Macias Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Mediation and Motion to Amend in the lawsuit
captioned LETICIA MACIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. BNSF RAILWAY
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2305-TC-GEB (D. Kan.).

In their Motion for Mediation, the Plaintiffs seek an order
requiring the parties to mediate. In the Motion to Amend, the
Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Fifth Amended Class Action
Complaint. Defendants BNSF Railway ("BNSF") and the Unified
Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas ("the Unified
Government") oppose the motion for mediation, and all the
Defendants oppose the motion to amend.

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs Leticia Macias, Elizabeth Magana
Zamora, San Juanita Schneider, Ashley Negrete, and Juan Carlos
Vasquez filed a complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated persons against Defendants BNSF, Miles Leasing,
LLC, the Unified Government, Terminal Consolidation Company, Amino
Bros. Co, LLC, and Jane/John Doe Construction Company. The
complaint alleged that the Defendants' conduct contributed to
flooding between June and August 2017 in the Argentine neighborhood
in Kansas City, Kansas, causing material injury to the Plaintiffs'
property through trespass, public and private nuisance, negligence,
and gross negligence. The complaint also alleged inverse
condemnation against BNSF and the Unified Government. The Unified
Government filed a motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs
responded, and on July 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint that named the same Defendants and asserted the same
causes of action.

On Oct. 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer conducted a
Scheduling Conference in the case. Based on discussions with
counsel, the Court continued the Scheduling Conference for four
weeks to permit the parties time to more thoroughly discuss their
respective theories of the case and make amendments to their Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures.

On Nov. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint.  During the continued Scheduling
Conference on November 26, 2019, the Defendants advised they did
not oppose the Plaintiffs filing their proposed Second Amended
Complaint, and it was deemed filed as of that date. The pleading
added a new Defendant, Nickell Properties, LLC, and for the first
time distinguished between alleged injuries to property west of the
drainage creek from alleged injuries to property east of the
creek.

On Nov. 27, 2019, the Court issued a Phase I Scheduling Order. The
order set January 7, 2020, as the deadline for any motion for leave
to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings, and
set June 7, 2020, as the close of discovery related to whether a
class should be certified.

On Dec. 10, 2019, the Unified Government filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs did not respond to the
motion but on January 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to file a Third
Amended Complaint, explaining they "would like to amend their
Complaint to add in two additional Plaintiffs and add language that
better illustrates Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants."

BNSF and the Unified Government opposed the motion, but on
different grounds. On January 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, this
time omitting from the proposed amended pleading certain
allegations copied from the Second Amended Complaint that BNSF
contended were in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

On Feb. 6, 2020, Judge John Lungstrum issued an order for the
Plaintiffs to show cause why he should not dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint against all the Defendants for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction based on the Plaintiffs' failure to plead that
they have satisfied the notice requirements of the Kansas Tort
Claims Act and the Plaintiffs' failure to plead sufficient facts
from which Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") jurisdiction might be
inferred. In his order dated March 3, 2020, that ruled on the
issue, Judge Lungstrum found the Plaintiffs' response to the show
cause order had sufficiently alleged facts in support of subject
matter jurisdiction.

On March 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint. The Unified Government, BNSF, Terminal Consolidation
Company, and Nickell Properties all filed motions to dismiss. On
April 3, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to extend
discovery and other deadlines--but not the already-expired deadline
to amend pleadings or join parties--due to restrictions resulting
from the evolving Covid-19 pandemic. Judge Birzer granted the
motion the same day, extending the Phase I discovery period to
August 7, 2020, and the class certification motion deadline to
October 9, 2020.

After responding to the motions to dismiss, on May 12, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended
Complaint.  Four Defendants opposed the motion, variously arguing
failure to show good cause to seek to amend the Scheduling Order
out of time, failure to cure the alleged deficiencies of the Third
Amended Complaint, and futility.

On June 25, 2020, Judge Lungstrum issued a Memorandum and Order
that ruled on the motions to dismiss and thr Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint. Although Judge
Lungstrum granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend, he imposed
restrictions on the new complaint.  He states that the amended
complaint must remove Defendants Terminal Consolidation Company and
Nickell Properties, LLC as named Defendants in the case. Moreover,
the amended complaint must remove all claims that the Court
dismisses against the Unified Government and BNSF. He prohibited
the Plaintiffs from including any new allegations in the amended
complaint.

On July 16, 2020, Judge Birzer conducted a telephone conference
with the parties and entered the Second Amended Phase I Scheduling
Order. The order concludes with the cautionary note that the Court
is unlikely to extend these deadlines further absent extraordinary
circumstances.

On July 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended
Complaint. No Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. Although
the Plaintiffs later filed a motion to extend discovery, they
withdrew the motion and stated their desire to maintain the
deadlines in the Second Amended Phase I Scheduling Order.

The Plaintiffs first served discovery in the case in August 2020,
16 months after filing their complaint. They served interrogatories
and requests for production of documents on the Unified Government,
Amino Bros., BNSF, and Miles Leasing, and served requests for
admissions on Miles Leasing. On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs
served additional document requests on BNSF and the Unified
Government. The Plaintiffs noticed nine depositions to be taken
between September 29, 2020, and December 8, 2020, with the last two
taken by agreement after the close of discovery.

The Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' written discovery. The
Plaintiffs filed no motions to compel compliance or otherwise
sought the Court's assistance in resolving any dispute regarding
the Defendants' discovery responses. Likewise, BNSF noticed and the
Defendants took the deposition of each named Plaintiff in July and
August 2020, and the Defendants served various types of paper
discovery and issued third-party records subpoenas during the
period April to October 2020. Again, no Defendant filed a motion to
compel or requested the Court's assistance in resolving a discovery
dispute.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motions on January 15, 2021, and
concomitantly filed their motion for class certification. They seek
a substantial revision to their operative class action complaint.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to (1) "switch out" several
Plaintiffs, dismissing Ashley Negrete and N.N. (a minor) and adding
Michael Schaeffer and Ann Brandau-Murguia; (2) add six new
Defendants; (3) expand the class definition geographically and
create two subclasses--a "West" subclass and an "East" subclass
(with the "East" subclass represented by a new Plaintiff); (4) add
several new allegations and theories; (5) add two new causes of
action (Count V for breach of contract and Count VI for violation
of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act); and (6) resurrect a claim
against BNSF for inverse condemnation that Judge Lungstrum
previously dismissed.

Motion to Amend

Judge Birzer notes that the Plaintiffs' motion makes no mention of
good cause, nor does it acknowledge Rule 16 applies. Indeed, during
the motion hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel sidestepped the issue
and argued the standard to be applied is simply that leave should
be freely given. He further argued if good cause is required, the
Plaintiffs met the requirement by demonstrating the proposed Fifth
Amended Complaint is a result of new information the Plaintiffs
learned through depositions and other discovery.

Certainly the discovery of new information may support a finding of
good cause to amend a scheduling order, but the Plaintiffs bear the
burden to demonstrate good cause, and in their motion the
Plaintiffs neither identified the newly learned information nor
described when and how they learned of it, Judge Birzer opines.

The Plaintiffs' motion contains a single conclusory statement
regarding their entitlement to amend their complaint under the
requirements of Rule 15: "Neither parties will be prejudiced by the
Court granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File their Fifth
Amended Complaint, however the Plaintiffs will be substantially
prejudiced if leave is not granted." The Defendants argue the
motion should be denied on the grounds that it is untimely, the
Defendants would suffer undue prejudice if the complaint is amended
after class discovery has closed, and it is futile.

The Court found the proposed amendment is untimely. It also found
the Defendants would be unduly prejudice by the proposed amendment.
Class discovery closed on October 30, 2020. On that date, the
Plaintiffs moved to extend class discovery. But on November 19,
they withdrew the motion and said they wanted to keep the schedule
in place and get their class certification motion on file. Now, in
the class certification motion they have filed, the Plaintiffs make
it clear that they intend to conduct more discovery related to
class certification--presumably in addition to merits
discovery--and announce they will likely seek to amend the motion
to certify.

The Plaintiffs increasingly leave the impression that they view
this case as one with no firm deadlines, where they can
unilaterally decide how and when they will proceed with no regard
to the impact of their actions on themselves, Defendants, and the
Court, Judge Birzer says.

The Defendants also argue the motion should be denied on the basis
of futility, including statute of limitations bars, failure to
state a claim, and inability to add new Defendants under Rule 15
because theirs was not a case of mistaken identity. The Court says
it did not reach the issue of futility, having denied the motion
because it is untimely and the Defendants would be unduly
prejudiced by its allowance.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs asserted without elaboration they
would be prejudiced by its denial. Although counsel did not address
the issue during the motion hearing, the Court expressed its
understanding that counsel has been challenged in trying to
articulate who and what the Plaintiffs believe caused the damages
the Plaintiffs contend they suffered by flooding on their property.
The Court recounted the latitude the Plaintiffs have received
through liberal rulings that have repeatedly allowed them
additional time to articulate their theory of the case. But this
motion for leave to amend has moved the target one too many times,
and the Defendants will not be required to set chase from the
starting line, Judge Birzer points out. The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to Amend is denied.

In denying the motion, the Court notes that it does not intend to
overlook or negate the Plaintiffs' decision to dismiss Ashley
Negrete and N.N. as named Plaintiffs. The Court will afford the
Plaintiffs the opportunity to confirm that dismissal of these
individuals remains their intention.

Motion for Mediation

The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for mediation along with their
motions for leave to amend and for class certification, stating
through discovery they believe they have outlined liability that
may encourage the parties to settle. BNSF and the Unified
Government oppose the motion. According to the Plaintiffs,
mediation at this juncture is called for in the Scheduling Order.

That is incorrect, and the Plaintiffs' motion is premature, Judge
Birzer opines. As the Scheduling Order states, "[a] status
conference to discuss further scheduling will be promptly set upon
the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A
mediation date will be discussed and set at that status
conference." Until it is determined whether a class is certified
and if so, how the class is defined and what claims remain, this
case will not be in a posture where mediation would be meaningful,
Judge Birzer explains.

The Court holds that it will not order the parties to participate
in a useless exercise, and the Court denies the motion without
prejudice. The Plaintiffs may renew the motion or any other party
may bring such motion following the District Judge's ruling on
class certification.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum and Order, the Court
finds the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the standards for amendment
under Rule 15(b), and mediation is not warranted at this time.

At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the Unified Government
orally moved that any deadline for the Defendants to challenge the
Plaintiffs' Amended Designation of Experts and Disclosure of Expert
Testimony be held in abeyance pending the District Judge's ruling
on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs
did not oppose the oral motion.

The Court finds it appropriate to suspend the applicable deadlines.
Accordingly, the Defendants will serve any objections to the
Plaintiffs' Amended Designation of Experts and Disclosure of Expert
Testimony (other than objections pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702-705,
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993),
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case
law), within 14 days of the District Judge's ruling on the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class. These objections
should be confined to technical objections related to the
sufficiency of the written expert disclosures (e.g., whether all
information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) has been provided) and
need not extend to the admissibility of the expert's proposed
testimony. If such technical objections are served, counsel must
confer or make a reasonable effort to confer consistent with D.
Kan. Rule 37.2 before filing any motion based on those objections.

If a Phase II Scheduling Order is necessary, the Court will address
therein the deadline for motions to exclude testimony of expert
witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.702-705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended
Complaint is denied. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Mediation is
denied.

The Plaintiffs are directed to file an appropriate document
dismissing Ashley Negrete and N.N. as parties, or to file a notice
stating that Ashley Negrete and N.N. remain as named Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 1,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vc94pnj from
Leagle.com.


BRICKELL BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brickell Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Brickell Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02594 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Brickell Brands doing business as Brickell Men's Products --
https://brickellmensproducts.com/ -- offers luxury men's skin care
& men's grooming products using natural & organic ingredients -
face wash for men, face moisturizer for men, aftershave &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coronavirus Refund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
paddleyourownkanoo.com reports that a class-action lawsuit that
alleges that British Airways withheld cash refunds for cancelled
flights as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has been given
permission to proceed by a federal judge after BA attempted to have
the case dismissed.

Like many airlines, British Airways cancelled thousands of flights
en masse at the outset of the pandemic last year as travel
restrictions took hold and people were ordered into lockdown.

The lawsuit alleges that BA broke its own conditions of carriage by
coercing customers whose flights had been cancelled to accept a
future travel voucher rather than the cash refund that they wanted
and were entitled to.

Leading the claim, Stephen Ide who had bought roundtrip tickets
from Boston to London for $701.46 filed the lawsuit in the state of
New York after he initially accepted a future travel voucher only
to then realise that the voucher had to be used within the next
12-months.

The suit claims British Airways coerced Mr Ide into accepting the
voucher over a cash refund when it deliberately changed its website
by removing the option to request a refund online and instead
directed customers to telephone overburdened call center staff.

Mr Ide tried to call the BA call center but got disconnected
because the lines were overwhelmed so he looked at BA's website
where he found the option to request a future travel voucher.
Believing this to be the only option, Mr Ide requested the
voucher.

Four other attempts to call British Airways went unanswered but
when he finally got through to the agent he was told to file a
complaint via the airline's website -- a process that was glitchy
and ultimately didn't allow Mr Ide to actually submit his
complaint.

"BA's wrongful practice of denying refunds has deprived consumers
like Mr. Ide of the money they paid for cancelled travel during a
time of crisis when they need access to those funds," the lawsuit
explains. "Very few BA customers succeed in obtaining the refunds
for cancelled flights to which they have a contractual right," the
suit alleges.

"The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is
impracticable. The Class includes at least thousands of members. BA
sells millions of tickets every year, and the recent cancellation
of BA flights affected thousands of U.S. travelers."

British Airways had sought to have the case dismissed arguing that
the lawsuit was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
United States District Judge Jesse Furman rejected that argument
but agreed that the claim should be limited to compensatory damages
only.

British Airways also succeeded in arguing that one of the
plaintiffs should have his case dealt with through arbitration
because he signed an arbitration clause when he booked his tickets
through Expedia.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimated that
at the height of the pandemic, airlines collectively owed
passengers $35 billion in cancelled flight refunds. IATA had urged
consumers to accept future travel vouchers to avoid some airlines
from going bust. [GN]


BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL PERAL, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. BRITTGAB CORP. d/b/a SABA's PIZZA, MOSHGAB CORP. d/b/a
SABA's PIZZA, PIZZA 84 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, GABI OPERATING CORP.
d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA 26 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA 54 INC. d/b/a
MARINARA, and GABRIEL WEISER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01892 (S.D.N.Y.
March 4, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime,
due to time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff additionally alleges for damages under the Internal
Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 7434 for relief, damages, fees and
costs in this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent
tax information forms with the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
are and have been subjected to the Defendants' decisions, policies,
plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and
rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them
their proper overtime premium at one and a half times the regular
rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek due to time
shaving.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx County, New York.

The Defendants operate a chain of six restaurants as a single
integrated enterprise. Two of the Restaurants share the trade name
"SABA'S PIZZA," while the other four share the trade name
"MARINARA."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

CALIFORNIA: Bid to Reconsider Montecastro Class Action Status Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENDRIX M. MONTECASTRO, Plaintiff v. NEWSOME, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01065-NONE-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for consideration as to
class action status of the case.

Plaintiff Montecastro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  The action was originally filed jointly by the
Plaintiff and Paul Adams, another state prisoner.  The complaint
stated as follows: "Also the Plaintiffs file suit as a joint action
and later may move if appropriate move to classify this action as a
class action law suit, so thereby, the Plaintiffs reserve class
action status prospect depending on the circumstances of this
action; Otherwise the Court should consider classifying this action
as a class action herewith in the interests of justice."

Because no motion for class certification had yet been filed, on
Aug. 14, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge determined that the
action should be severed and that each Plaintiff should proceed
separately with respect to his own claim.  The Plaintiff filed
objections on Aug. 28, 2019, a motion for reconsideration as to the
case's class action status on Sept. 27, 2019, and further
objections to the order to sever the action on Sept. 30, 2019.

A petition for writ of mandamus was denied by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals on Nov. 21, 2019.  On Feb. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed a motion demanding a ruling on his pending objections to the
magistrate judge's orders.  A second petition for writ of mandamus
was denied by the Ninth Circuit on June 25, 2020.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's
severance of the case into two separate actions and argues that the
action should be certified as a class action, with him acting as
the class counsel.

Judge Drozd finds the Plaintiff's objection as to the severance of
the case unpersuasive.  He says, despite the Plaintiff's argument
that he did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over the
action, the magistrate judge retained authority to determine
non-dispositive matters, such as whether severance of this action
was appropriate.  To the extent the Plaintiff's objections set
forth a request for immediate screening of the complaint and
service of summons on the Defendants, the Judge denies that
request.  The Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due
course.

As to the Plaintiff's request that the action be granted class
action status, the Judge also denies the request.  He explains that
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a) provides that a class action
may only be brought if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

Finally, the Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without
counsel.  It is well-established that a layperson cannot ordinarily
represent the interests of a class.  A non-attorney proceeding pro
se may bring his own claims to court but may not represent others.
Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to proceed as
class counsel, and his request in that regard is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd denies the Plaintiff's motion for
consideration as to class action status of the case.  The
Plaintiff's motion for a ruling on his pending objections to the
magistrate judge's orders is addressed by the instant order and is
rendered moot as a result.  The Judge refers the action back to the
magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with his
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yx6ude7y from Leagle.com.


CARGURUS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarGurus, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CarGurus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02596
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms 2 Decisions in Birchmeier Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Defendants. Appeals of:
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.; Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours,
Inc.; The Berkley Group, Inc.; and Daisy Exum, Case Nos. 20-2672,
20-2676, 20-2698, 20-2699 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirms the district court's decisions: one
handling the principal class-wide issues, and one determining that
class member Daisy Exum had received 15 robocalls rather than the
700 she claimed or the 250 the Master found.

The first decision in the large-scale class action affirmed the
district court's handling of the settlement and award of attorneys'
fees.  What remained for decision was who had received how many
illegal robocalls, each of which was to support an award of $500
(subject to any adjustments necessary to ensure that the total
received by class members, fits within the range of $56 million to
$76 million established by the settlement).

Following the process outlined in the settlement, the district
court resolved some open issues and referred others to a claims
administrator, whose decisions could be reviewed by Wayne Anderson,
serving as a special master.  After the Master had made
determinations (which the parties call "awarding calls"), the class
took exception to some parts of the decision and three of the
defendants took exception to others.  The district judge asked the
Master to hold additional hearings to resolve disputes by some
class members who said that their claims had been mishandled.
After that had been done, the judge resolved the remaining issues.

The appeals contest two of the judge's decisions: One handling the
principal class-wide issues, and one determining that class member
Exum had received 15 robocalls rather than the 700 she claimed or
the 250 the Master found.  The class representatives have not
appealed, but Exum and three of the original Defendants have done
so.

Exum contends that the Master's decisions are not reviewable, while
the three Defendants assert that appellate review is de novo -- in
other words, that the court of appeals decides on its own, without
deference to the Master or the district judge.

The Seventh Circuit does not agree with either approach.  It says a
special master, as a judge's delegate, cannot exercise unreviewable
authority even if the parties agree to cut out the Article III
judiciary. And the Defendants are wrong to label their protests
issues of law.  They are mixed legal and factual matters.  As the
Supreme Court explained in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge,
LLC, 138 S.Ct. 960, 966-68 (2018), the standard of appellate review
depends on whether the arguments are case-specific, which implies
deferential appellate review, or apply to multiple other cases.
All of the arguments in all of the appeals before the Seventh
Circuit are case-specific, which means that its review is
deferential.

And the district judge's decisions comfortably survive deferential
appellate review Take Exum's contention that she received 700
robocalls.  She said that her phone bills prove that 700 calls
originated from the defendants or their agents, but she asserted
that she had lost the bills.  She did not attempt to obtain new
copies from the phone company.  The district judge observed that
there would not have been any reason for the Defendants to call
Exum incessantly (Exum estimated twice a day for a year), when they
did not call anyone else nearly that often.  Drawing on the numbers
of calls proved by class members who retained records, the district
judge estimated that Exum had been called 15 times.  That number is
not clearly erroneous, the Seventh Circuit holds.

Finally, the Defendants' arguments in support of their own appeals
principally concern the administration of the settlement's
presumption that the class members who do not prove some different
number of calls will be treated as having received three.  The
settlement calls this a presumption, but the Defendants challenged
its application to almost 95% of the class members who availed
themselves of it.  In their view, only calls registered on the
"class list" should count. The claims administrator, however, also
looked at calls on lists derived from other sources.  The district
judge largely endorsed the claims administrator's approach,
observing that the class list had been compiled from incomplete
records.

The Seventh Circuit thinks that the district judge's opinion says
all that need be said about the objections that the Defendants have
raised on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/u42sw28c from Leagle.com.


CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in New York Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casper Sleep Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend several putative class action suits related to its initial
public offering (IPO).

Beginning in June 2020, several putative class actions have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by
certain of the company's shareholders against it, its directors,
certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with the initial public offering.

The cases are in preliminary stages.

The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed in New York
State Supreme Court, and briefing on that motion is ongoing.

The Company has also moved to stay the proceedings in the Eastern
District of New York pending disposition of the state court motion
to dismiss, and that stay motion is pending.

Casper said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them."

Casper Sleep Inc. manufactures home furnishing products. The
Company designs, produces, and markets range of mattresses, sheets,
pillows, duvet, and bed frames. Casper Sleep serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York.

CASPER SLEEP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issues this Notice, which has been
authorized by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, relating to the requested dismissal without prejudice of
the putative class action captioned In re Casper Sleep Inc.
Securities Litigation, Index No. 652284/2020 (the "Action").

The Action, which alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
arose out of the February 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") of
the common stock of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper"). The Action was
brought on behalf of a putative class of all those who purchased
common stock in or traceable to the IPO. Named as defendants in the
Action are Casper, certain of its officers and/or directors, and
the underwriters for the IPO.

This Notice is being issued to putative class members in accordance
with Rule 908 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which
provides, in relevant part, that notice of the dismissal of a class
action "shall be given to all members of the class in such manner
as the court directs." No class has been certified and plaintiffs
will not be seeking to certify a class as part of the dismissal.
The Action will be discontinued, without prejudice, as of May 3,
2021. If you believe you are a putative class member, you may wish
to contact a lawyer to understand your rights. Counsel for the
parties will not provide any recommendations or legal advice about
the effect this dismissal will have on you.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210325005228/en/[GN]

CATERPILLAR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Texas Hill's 1st Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint in the lawsuit entitled Texas Hill Country Landscaping,
Inc., et al., Plaintiffs v. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-0227 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Texas Hill Country Landscaping, Inc., doing business as
Quality Organic Products of Selma; Morning Star Farms, Inc.; and
Northwest Recycling, LLC, seek to represent a national class of
purchasers and lessors of certain C-18 and C-32 engines
manufactured and sold by Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. The Plaintiffs
allege that these engines have a defective component called a
cylinder liner.

According to the Plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint,
when the cylinder liner fails, oil and coolant mix, ultimately
leading to engine failure. That failure requires expensive,
time-consuming repairs in existing engines. The first amended
complaint has six counts: a claim for declaratory and injunctive
relief, breach of express and implied warranty (counts II and III),
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs propose two
nationwide classes comprised of all purchasers or lessors of
Caterpillar engines equipped with the allegedly defective cylinder
liners. One class would be for the purpose of issuing, or denying,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and the other would be a
nationwide damages class. The Plaintiffs maintain that Illinois's
substantive law would govern the claims of all class members. But
if the choice of law analysis ultimately points to the law of one
or more other states, the Plaintiffs propose certifying
state-specific subclasses. As a further alternative to the damages
class, the Plaintiffs would seek certification of one or more
issues for class-wide resolution, such as whether the liners are
defective.

Caterpillar moves to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack
of standing and in part for failure to state a claim. Caterpillar
also asks the court to strike the first amended complaint's class
action allegations under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Caterpillar attached the declarations of two of its employees, Gary
Mueller and Jesse Quick, to its memorandum in support of its motion
to dismiss. The declarations describe in general terms some alleged
differences between the design, manufacture, and applications of
Caterpillar's C-18 and C-32 engines. For instance, both aver that
different Caterpillar divisions design and manufacture its C-18 and
C-32 engines. Caterpillar relies on these declarations solely to
support its motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Caterpillar does not dispute that the three Named Plaintiffs have
standing to press their individual claims. The Court agrees.

Rather than attack the Named Plaintiffs' individual standing,
Caterpillar challenges, under the heading of Article III standing,
their fitness to represent the putative class because their
injuries allegedly differ significantly from those of absent class
members, who purchased different products. Caterpillar points to
Mueller and Quick's averments describing alleged differences
between the design, purposes, distribution, and uses of
Caterpillar's C-18 and C-32 engines.

Caterpillar cites several district court decisions conducting a
standing analysis at the pleading stage.

District Judge Joan B. Gottschall notes that these cases
demonstrate a split among courts in this district. See Liston v.
King.com, Ltd., 254 F.Supp.3d 989, 998-99 (N.D. Ill. 2017). In some
of the decisions Caterpillar cites, the court held that named
plaintiffs have no standing to assert claims based on products they
did not purchase, citing Porter v. NBTY, Inc., 2016 WL 6948379, at
*3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2016) (Shah, J.), et al. Other district
courts have asked broadly whether the product used by the named
plaintiff was substantially like products used by members of the
proposed class.

The Court agrees with district courts in the Seventh Circuit that
have concluded that whether the named plaintiffs may assert the
rights of absent class members is neither a standing issue nor an
Article III case or controversy issue but depends rather on meeting
the prerequisites of Rule 23 governing class actions, citing In re
Opana ER Antitrust Litig., 162 F.Supp.3d 704, 722 (N.D. Ill. 2016)
(Leinenweber, J.).

In the case, as in Payton v. Cty. of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 677 (7th
Cir. 2002), Caterpillar's arguments about the mismatch between the
Named laintiffs' alleged injuries and those of the class members
raise Rule 23 issues that logically precede Article III standing,
Judge Gottschall opines.

As stated, the parties agree that the Named Plaintiffs have
individual standing, and the Court concurs. The Court rejects
Caterpillar's efforts to inject class certification issues into the
standing inquiry, particularly while class certification discovery
is ongoing.

Reprising and elaborating upon its standing arguments, Caterpillar
moves under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
strike the first amended complaint's class action allegations as
"facially defective." Caterpillar's argument hinges primarily on
its analysis of Illinois choice of law principles as applied to the
claims of the proposed class. Caterpillar asserts that the proposed
classes described in the first amended complaint could not survive
the rigorous class certification scrutiny required by Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the class would fail on
key Rule 23 requirements such as typicality, superiority, and
predominance.

The Plaintiffs dispute Caterpillar's choice of law analysis and
argue that it would be premature to conduct a Rule 23 analysis and
a choice of law analysis at the pleading stage. As with standing,
the parties raise the threshold procedural question of how far, if
at all, to delve into class certification issues while class
certification discovery is ongoing.

Though Caterpillar argues otherwise, the certification issues it
raises are enmeshed in factual and legal issues that would benefit
from full exploration after certification discovery is complete,
Judge Gottschall opines. On choice of law, for instance,
Caterpillar relies primarily on Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's, Inc.,
2017 WL 4572201, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2017). The Cowen court
struck a proposed nationwide consumer class because applying the
warranty, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation laws of fifty
different states, or even the five states that comprise the
multi-state class, is unmanageable on a class-wide basis because
those states' laws conflict in material ways.

Furthermore, even if Caterpillar is right and the choice of law
analysis will point to the laws of up to 50 states, Caterpillar has
not shown that the conflicts of law it has identified are material
enough to defeat certification at the pleading stage, Judge
Gottschall holds.

Caterpillar identifies differences between the warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment laws of various states at
a high level of generality. How these alleged differences create an
actual conflict affecting the specific claims of the Named
Plaintiffs and class members has not been explained, however, Judge
Gottschall notes.

Because a choice of law analysis is premature, the Court cannot
rule out the possibility that there will be no material conflicts
of laws or that, if there are, state-specific subclasses may be a
manageable alternative in the event that certifying a national
class proves unworkable.

For all of these reasons, the class certification issues
Caterpillar raises must be resolved following class certification
discovery and with the benefit of full briefing, Judge Gottschall
holds. This will permit the Court to conduct the rigorous analysis
Rule 23 requires.

Caterpillar's final set of arguments challenge the sufficiency of
the first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Caterpillar contends that
the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to plead essential elements
of their breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation claims. Caterpillar analyzes each Named
Plaintiff's claims under the law of its respective state of
incorporation--Texas, Kansas, and Maryland. The Plaintiffs respond
that each claim has been adequately alleged under the respective
state's law.

Although the Plaintiffs defend the first amended complaint's
sufficiency under Texas, Kansas, and Maryland law, they also
specifically object to Caterpillar's motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(d). Rule 12(d) requires a court to treat a Rule
12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment if "matters outside the
pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court."

The threshold choice of law question complicates the discretionary
decision here, Judge Gottschall notes. As discussed and as the
parties' briefing makes clear, the choice of law issues raised here
require further factual and legal development. The Judge points out
that this is not a case in which the parties agree on what law
applies.

The Plaintiffs address choice of law in the first amended complaint
and in their briefing on the pending motion. Caterpillar cites no
authority allowing the Court to disregard the first amended
complaint's choice of law allegations; nor does Caterpillar point
to any factual allegations in the first amended complaint that
undermine the Plaintiffs' choice of law contentions, Judge
Gottschall finds. Thus, the facts necessary to conduct the choice
of law analysis must come from outside the first amended
complaint.

As discussed, the parties have not had an opportunity to develop
the legal and factual record needed to resolve the important choice
of law questions raised in this case. Accordingly, the Court
declines to convert the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a
summary judgment motion.

Remaining then is the question of what to do given that the Court
cannot reach the contested choice of law issues. Judge Gottschall
holds that the answer requires a straightforward application of the
well-settled rule that failure to develop a legal argument in an
opening brief results in the argument's waiver.

Because Caterpillar's choice of law allegations cannot be reached,
the Court assumes for purposes of the present motion that, as the
first amended complaint alleges, Illinois law governs. Since
Caterpillar does not cite or analyze Illinois law in support of its
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, its arguments for dismissing the Named
Plaintiffs' claims have been waived.

For the reasons stated, Caterpillar's motion to dismiss and to
strike portions of the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b8c7drs from
Leagle.com.


CELGENE CORPORATION: BCBSM Antitrust Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BCBSM, INC.; HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION;
MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CELGENE CORPORATION and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CORPORATION, Case
No. 0:20-cv-02071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on March 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-06668 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged monopoly of cancer
drug market by blocking or delaying the release of potential
generic drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics
Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act,
and various regulations issued by the Food & Drug Administration.

BCBSM, Inc. is a health insurance company with its principal place
of business in Minnesota.

Health Care Service Corporation is a health insurance company with
its principal place of business in Illinois.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company with a principal
place of business in Long Beach, California.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. is a health insurance
company with its principal place of business in Jacksonville,
Florida.

Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Summit, New Jersey.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation is a global biopharmaceutical
company headquartered in New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Andrew M. Luger, Esq.
         Lisa L. Beane, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 217-8800
         Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
         E-mail: aluger@jonesday.com
                 lbeane@jonesday.com

                  - and –

         Brian D. Hershman, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 S. Flower Street, 50th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 489-3939
         Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
         E-mail: bhershman@jonesday.com

                  - and –

         Toni-Ann Citera, Esq.
         Rajeev Muttreja, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         250 Vesey Street
         New York, NY 10281
         Telephone: (212) 326-3939
         Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
         E-mail: tcitera@jonesday.com
                 rmuttreja@jonesday.com

                  - and –

         Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq.
         Colette T. Connor, Esq.
         WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
         725 Twelfth Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 434-5000
         Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
         E-mail: bgreenblum@wc.com
                 cconnor@wc.com

CENLAR FSB: Faces Read RESPA Suit Over Failure to Respond to RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY READ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENLAR FSB, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00504 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
respond to the Plaintiff's requests for account information,
including producing requested audio recordings. Under RESPA, loan
servicers must respond to borrowers' requests for specific account
information within 30 days upon receiving a Qualified Written
Request (QWR) or a Request for Information (RFI).

Cenlar FSB is a loan servicing provider headquartered in Ewing, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

                - and –

         Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
         St. George, Utah 84790
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

CENTRA TECH: Investors in Cryptocurrency Scam Ask to Revive Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
courthousenews.com reports that an attorney for a class of
investors who claim they were scammed out of over $30 million by
defunct cyptocurrency startup Centra Tech asked an 11th Circuit
panel to reverse a ruling tossing out a class action lawsuit due to
the late filing of a certification document.

Seven investors who purchased Centra Tech tokens sued the company
in 2017, claiming that the startup marketed an "initial coin
offering" to raise money for the creation of "the world's first
multi-blockchain debit card with a smart and insured wallet."
Unfortunately, the debit card didn't exist.

The company's founders were indicted for defrauding investors by
selling them unregistered securities backed by digital currencies.

Centra Tech co-founder Sohrab "Sam" Sharma was sentenced earlier
this month to eight years in prison for his role in the scheme and
ordered to forfeit $36 million. Fellow co-founder Robert Farkas was
sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to forfeit $347,062.

Arguing on behalf of the class, attorney John Carriel of Zelle told
a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court that the
federal court's analysis of the case was inconsistent with
precedents set by other Florida federal courts.

Carriel told the panel that U.S. District Judge Robert Scola, Jr.
"completely ignored the procedural history of the case" which
included "procedural hurdles" that lengthened the time it took for
plaintiffs to move for class certification.

The class's motion for certification was not filed until 18 months
after its initial complaint and six months after its amended
complaint.

In a September 2019 order, Scola found that the delay was untimely.
The judge also ruled that the class failed to show that it could
identify potential class members who purchased Centra Tech tokens.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Bill Clinton appointee,
noted that there was a stay in place for an "extended" period of
time in the case and asked whether the plaintiffs could have filed
a motion seeking class certification while the stay was in effect.

"We were operating under the impression that the district court was
fully aware of this," Carriel explained.

"There was nothing more we could've done. We asked for a schedule.
It was out of our hands," Carriel said. "I'd just like to stress
that we followed all the rules, we did everything we could. I don't
know what we could've done differently."

But an attorney for Centra Tech told the panel that the district
court was "well within its discretion to find the plaintiffs'
motion was not timely."

"When would it have been timely for them to seek class
certification here? When should they have done it?" Marcus asked.
"They sought [certification] in June 2019 and the district court
said 'Too late, you lose, not timely.' The case had been pending
almost 18 months. During that 18-month period, at least 14 months
were consumed with a stay certainly covering discovery. . . .  When
should they have filed this to make it timely?"

"The rule says at an early practicable time. There's no bright line
case law on what's an early practicable time," Florida attorney
Gennaro Cariglio argued on behalf of Centra Tech.

Cariglio told the panel that the class should have raised the issue
with the district court and asked for more time due to the stay.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Donald Trump appointee,
asked why it should be the class's job to inform the judge of court
procedures.

"They could've alerted the court to their need for discovery. . . .
but they never alerted the court at all," Cariglio answered.

Cariglio also argued that the outcome of the case is ultimately
irrelevant since another court has already entered a preliminary
order of forfeiture impacting the same funds sought by the class.

"All the Ether that they're seeking in this civil class action has
been seized by the government," Cariglio said.

The FBI seized digital funds raised from victims who purchased
Centra Tech tokens in 2018. The U.S. Marshals Service sold the
seized Ether units for $33.4 million this year. According to a
statement from the Department of Justice, the funds will be
available for potential use in a remission program to compensate
victims of the fraud after a final order of forfeiture is entered
in Sharma's case.

"At the end of the day, all of that Ether, everything we're
fighting about, everything we're here about today, is property of
the government," Cariglio said.

Marcus and Lagoa were joined on the panel by Senior U.S. Circuit
Judge R. Lanier Anderson II, a Jimmy Carter appointee.

The panel did not indicate when it will reach a decision in the
case. [GN]

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., NEIL E. DE
CRESCENZO, HOWARD L. LANCE, NELLA DOMENICI, NICHOLAS L. KUHAR,
DIANA MCKENZIE, BANSI NAGJI, PHILIP M. PEAD, PHILLIP W. ROE, NEIL
P. SIMPKINS, and ROBERT J. ZOLLARS, Defendants, Case 3:21-cv-01948
(N.D. Cal., Mar. 19, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiff
against Change Healthcare Inc. ("Change Healthcare" or the
"Company") and the members of Change Healthcare's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Change Healthcare will be acquired by Optum, the health
services business platform of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
("UnitedHealth"), through UnitedHealth's subsidiary, Cambridge
Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction").

According to the complaint, on March 5, 2021, Change Healthcare
filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy
Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Change Healthcare stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Company insiders' potential
conflicts of interest; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co.
("Goldman"); and (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction.
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Unless remedied, Change Healthcare's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
Exchange Act violations are cured.

Change Healthcare, Inc. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHANGE-N-EFFECT: Eberhart Balks at Unreimbursed Automobile Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA EBERHART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE-N-EFFECT PIZZA LLC d/b/a
DOMINO'S PIZZA, CHANGE-N-EFFECT II PIZZA LLC, and JOHN MEKLER,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00254-D (W.D. Okla., March 24, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to reimburse automobile expenses,
resulting in wages below the federal minimum wage in some or all
workweeks.

The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located 201 N. Commerce St. Ste. A, Ardmore,
Oklahoma from approximately June 2019 to April 2020.

Change-N-Effect Pizza LLC, doing business as Domino's Pizza, is a
company that operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores located at 6
NW Millcreek Road Lawton, Oklahoma.

Change-N-Effect II Pizza LLC is a company that operates Domino's
Pizza franchise stores located at 6 NW Millcreek Road Lawton,
Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         400 N. St Paul St. Suite #700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
         E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Chicago Educators Appeal Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
nrtw.org reports that two Chicago Public Schools (CPS) educators
are appealing to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals their
class-action civil rights lawsuit charging the Chicago Teachers
Union (CTU) with illegal dues seizures.

The suit challenges a union policy that blocks teachers from
exercising their First Amendment right to stop payments to the
union outside of the month of August.

The lawsuit seeks refunds of all dues seized from dissenting
teachers by the Chicago Board of Education under the policy. The
Board enforces the arrangement at the behest of the CTU union and
is also named as a defendant.

The educators, Jones College Prep Tech Coordinator Joanne Troesch
and Newberry Math and Science Academy second-grade teacher Ifeoma
Nkemdi, are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The lawsuit contends that
the dues scheme perpetrated by CTU officials violates the First
Amendment protections laid out in the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v.
AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The appeal comes shortly after Troesch, Nkemdi, and other public
employees submitted an amicus brief in Belgau v. Inslee, which is
currently pending on a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme
Court. That class-action suit involves a group of Washington State
employees, led by Melissa Belgau, who are fighting similar policies
imposed by Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union
officials and the State of Washington.

In Janus, which was argued by National Right to Work Foundation
staff attorney William Messenger, the High Court struck down
mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment rights
of government employees. The Court ruled that taking any dues
without a government worker's affirmative consent violates the
First Amendment, and further made it clear that these rights cannot
be restricted absent a clear and knowing waiver. Messenger is on
Troesch and Nkemdi's legal team.

Troesch and Nkemdi's lawsuit explains that they "did not know they
had a constitutional right not to financially support" the union
hierarchy until the fall of 2019. The pair independently discovered
their First Amendment Janus rights while they were researching how
to exercise their right to continue working during a strike that
CTU bosses ordered in October 2019, the lawsuit notes. They sent
letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus
right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.

Both educators received no response until November of that year,
when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that
they would continue to seize dues from the teachers' paychecks
"until September 1, 2020." CTU bosses relied on the fact that
Troesch and Nkemdi had not submitted their letters within a union
boss-created "escape period," which limits when teachers can
exercise their First Amendment right to end dues deductions.

Troesch and Nkemdi contend that CTU officials' attempt to curb
employees' right to stop dues deductions with an "escape period"
and the Board's continued dues seizures both violate the First
Amendment. Their lawsuit seeks to make the CTU union and the Board
of Education stop enforcing the "escape period," and notify all
bargaining unit employees that they can end the deduction of union
dues at any time and "retroactively exercise that right."

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed Troesch and Nkemdi's lawsuit on February 25, 2021. The
court ruled that CTU officials didn't violate Janus by forbidding
the two educators from exercising their First Amendment right to
cut off union dues except for one month a year. This prompted
Foundation attorneys to appeal the case to the Seventh Circuit for
the educators.

Foundation staff attorneys in December 2020 filed a similar lawsuit
for University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System
employee Johnathan Shepard, who is challenging an "escape period"
foisted on him and his coworkers by Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) Local 73 bosses. Across the country, Foundation staff
attorneys represent public servants in at least 14 cases where
union officials have tried to confine their First Amendment Janus
rights to an "escape period."

"Each day that the courts refuse to uphold the clear logic of Janus
is another day that union bosses are allowed to hold onto the
hard-earned money of dissenting public servants in clear violation
of their First Amendment rights," commented National Right to Work
Foundation President Mark Mix. "The Foundation is proud to stand
with Ms. Troesch and Ms. Nkemdi, and will continue to defend all
educators who simply want to serve their students and community
without being forced to subsidize union activities." [GN]

CHOICE HOTELS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jai Sai Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAI SAI BABA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL INC. and CHOICE HOTEL OWNERS COUNCIL, Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02823 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings.

The action involves claims by hotel franchisees against the hotel
franchisor and the association of franchisees for violations of
federal and state laws.  Each Plaintiff signed a Franchise
Agreement containing an Arbitration Provision.

The Plaintiffs are 90 franchisees that each own and operate one or
more hotels that bear a brand mark of Defendant Choice.  Choice is
a hotel franchisor that owns several well-known national hotel
brands, including Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality Inn, Sleep
Inn, Clarion, Cambria Suites, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended
Stay Hotels, EconoLodge, Rodeway Inn, and Ascend Hotel Collection.
Defendant Choice Hotels Owners' Council ("CHOC") is an association
of franchisees.

In a 591-paragraph amended complaint, the Plaintiffs bring 21
counts for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)-(d); the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
1981; breach of contract and fiduciary duty; common law fraud; and
various state franchise acts.

The Plaintiffs assert the Defendants are liable for requiring them
to pay inflated prices to third-party vendors for products
necessary to the operation of their hotels, requiring the
Plaintiffs to abide by a variety of unconscionable franchise terms
and practices, discriminating against franchises owned by hoteliers
of Indian-American and South Asian American background, and
attempting to obstruct them from leaving the franchise system by
imposing onerous liquidated damages provisions and assessing
excessive penalties against departing franchises.

The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, Choice "has and continues to
engage in unconscionable, fraudulent, unlawful, and anticompetitive
business practices in connection with the operation of its hotel
franchise system."  They allege Choice, which has an ongoing
relationship with CHOC, corrupts CHOC "by providing various
benefits to members of its board in order to secure their support
of Choice's oppressive agenda."

The Plaintiffs allege "Choice dictates to CHOC board members what
proposed measures they will approve, and in exchange offers
substantial kickbacks to those board members, including
preferential treatment in CHOC's reservation system."  The Amended
Complaint states the Defendants intentionally and willfully
deprived the Plaintiffs of the same rights enjoyed by white
citizens to the creation, performance, enjoyment, and all benefits
of their contractual relationships with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs further allege Choice was in individual contractual
relationships with each Franchisee through the Franchise
Agreements.  They acknowledge that the Agreements "require
Franchisees to submit to binding arbitration in Choice's Maryland
headquarters, regardless of where their franchise is located."
They allege, however, that "Choice and CHOC conspired to
fraudulently represent to Franchisees that CHOC was a good faith
representative of their interests in order to induce them into
entering the Agreements and acquire from them a monthly association
fee."  The Amended Complaint states that Choice uses its superior
bargaining power to coerce the Franchisees into accepting onerous,
unequal, and unconscionable terms in its Franchise Agreements.

The Defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings, arguing that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are subject
to valid and binding mandatory arbitration clauses contained within
each Plaintiff's Franchise Agreement.  In response, the Plaintiffs
acknowledge the presence of Arbitration Provisions, but contend
that the Provisions should not be enforced.  They further assert
that the Arbitration Provisions are not enforceable by CHOC and
that if arbitration is compelled, all claims should not proceed on
an individual basis.  The Defendants filed a reply opposing the
Plaintiffs' arguments and highlighting that the Plaintiffs do not
challenge whether their claims are covered by the binding
Arbitration Provision.

Upon review of the Motion and responses, as well as the Amended
Complaint and the Franchise Agreements that are integral to the
claims, Judge Leeson notes as follows: "The parties agree that the
Arbitration Clauses in all of the Agreements are identical in
substance with regards to the issues in the instant Motion.  The
parties also agree that a majority of the Franchise Agreements
contain a class action waiver provision.  The Franchise Agreements
also contain varying provisions regarding the franchise
association.  Many of the Agreements state that it is the
Franchisee's duty to "join and maintain membership in" a franchise
association designated by Choice.  Other Franchise Agreements
contain provisions, in addition to or instead of the duty provision
above, stating that the Franchisees "acknowledge and agree that
Choice will consult with the Franchise Association" on the use of
certain fees and/or before making changes to certain policies."

Judge Leeson opines that the Franchise Agreements are integral to
the Complaint and may be considered when applying the Rule 12(b)(6)
standard of review.  Although the Plaintiffs assert that it is
necessary to allow discovery, they have not responded "with
additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in
issue."  The parties do not dispute that the Franchise Agreements
each contain Arbitration Provisions that apply to the claims in the
action.  Additionally, each of the Plaintiffs' arguments as to why
such provisions should not be enforced are rejected.

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs entered into valid,
enforceable arbitration agreements with Choice that they admit
apply to the claims in the instant action.  Because these claims,
as they relate to CHOC, also arise from the Franchise Agreements,
both Defendants may enforce the agreements to arbitrate.
Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings.  The Plaintiffs must proceed to arbitration
on an individual basis and the action is stayed pending the
resolution of these proceedings.  A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yydh4v3p from Leagle.com.


CLOVER HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH", "Clover", or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:CLOV)(NASDAQ:CLOVW) (NYSE:IPOC.U)(NYSE:IPOC)(NYSE:IPOC WS),
and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, and docketed under 21-cv-00138, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities between October
6, 2020 and February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Clover securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 6, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

SCH was a publicly-traded blank check company, also known as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition,
share purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination
with one or more businesses.

On October 6, 2020, SCH and a private health insurance company,
Clover Health Investments, Corp. ("Legacy Clover"), issued a press
release announcing their plan to bring Legacy Clover public via a
merger between SCH and Legacy Clover (the "Business Combination").
That press release described Legacy Clover as "a next-generation
Medicare Advantage insurance company offering best-in-class plans
that combine wide access to healthcare and rich supplemental
benefits with low out-of-pocket expenses[.]"

Legacy Clover's (and following the Business Combination, Clover's)
flagship platform, the Clover Assistant, purportedly aggregates
millions of relevant health data points-including claims, medical
charts, and diagnostics-and uses machine learning to synthesize
that data with member-specific information. This purportedly
provides physicians with actionable and personalized insights at
the point of care, offering suggestions for medications and dosages
as well as the need for, among other things, tests or referrals, to
ultimately improve health outcomes.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SCH had performed inadequate
due diligence into Legacy Clover prior to the Business Combination,
or else ignored and/or failed to disclose multiple red flags
concerning Legacy Clover's business and operations; (ii) since
before the Business Combination, Legacy Clover and/or Clover have
been under active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") for multiple issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing
practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (iii) Legacy Clover's
and/or Clover's sales were, and/or are, driven in large part by an
undisclosed related party deal, misleading marketing targeting the
elderly, and other illicit practices; (iv) Defendants overstated
the capabilities of the Company's technology; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued a
report on Clover entitled "Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs'
Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business Facing an Active,
Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." Citing "more than a dozen
interviews with former employees, competitors, and industry
experts, dozens of calls to doctor's offices, and a review of
thousands of pages of government reports, insurance filings,
regulatory filings, and company marketing materials," Hindenburg
claimed that "Clover Health and its Wall Street celebrity promoter,
Chamath Palihapitiya, misled investors about critical aspects of
Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC go-public
transaction last month."

Specifically, the Hindenburg report concluded, among other things,
that the Company and Clover Assistant "are under active
investigation by the [DOJ]" for "at least 12 issues ranging from
kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals";
that "Clover's sales are driven by a major undisclosed related
party deal and misleading marketing targeting the elderly"; that
"Clover's software is primarily a tool to help the company increase
coding reimbursement"; that doctors at key Clover providers view
Clover Assistant as "embarrassingly rudimentary", "a waste of . . .
time", and just another administrative hassle to deal with; and
that Clover pays physicians "$200 per visit to use the software,
twice the normal reimbursement rate for a Medicare visit."

On this news, Clover's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 12.33%,
to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a
loss of approximately $700 million in market capitalization.
Moreover, shares traded as low as $11.86 per share intraday on
February 4, 2021. Additionally, Clover warrants fell $0.18 per
warrant, or 5.04%, to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4,
2021.

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

COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the consolidated lawsuit captioned IN RE COLUMBIA
PIPELINE GROUP, INC. MERGER LITIGATION, Case No. 2018-0484-JTL
(Del. Ch.).

The Plaintiffs are former stockholders of Columbia Pipeline Group,
Inc. On May 17, 2016, the Company issued a proxy statement
describing a merger and recommending that its stockholders approve
it. On July 1, 2016, TransCanada Corp. acquired the Company under
an agreement and plan of merger dated March 17, 2016 ("Merger
Agreement"). Each share of Columbia common stock was converted into
the right to receive $25.50 in cash, subject to each stockholder's
right to eschew the consideration and seek appraisal.

During the sale process, Robert Skaggs, Jr., served as the
Company's CEO and as chairman of its board of directors. Steven
Smith served as the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer. The Plaintiffs contend that Skaggs and Smith
wanted to retire in 2016 and engineered a sale of the Company so
that they would receive their change-in-control benefits. The
Plaintiffs contend that once TransCanada emerged as a committed
bidder, Skaggs and Smith persistently favored TransCanada during
the sale process.

The Plaintiffs detail a series of actions that Skaggs and Smith
took which inferably undercut the Company's bargaining leverage
with TransCanada and prevented the Company from developing other
transactional alternatives. As a result, during the final phases of
the negotiations, TransCanada was able to lower its bid below the
range it had offered to obtain exclusivity, demand an answer within
three days, and threaten to announce publicly that merger
negotiations had terminated unless the Company accepted the lowered
bid. Faced with the bad situation that Smith and Skaggs had
created, the Board entered into the Merger Agreement.

The Plaintiffs contend that by taking these actions, Skaggs and
Smith breached their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs assert that
TransCanada knew that Skaggs and Smith were breaching their duties,
in part because their actions were so extreme, and exploited the
resulting opportunity, making TransCanada potentially liable for
aiding and abetting the breaches.

The Defendants point out that this is the fourth lawsuit arising
out of the Merger. Immediately after the Merger was announced, a
group of traditional stockholder plaintiffs attacked the deal in
this Court. The Defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss.

Next, a group of hedge funds pursued their appraisal rights
("Appraisal Proceeding"). That case was litigated through trial,
resulting in a decision holding that the Company's fair value for
purposes of appraisal was equal to the deal price of $25.50 per
share ("Appraisal Decision").

While the Appraisal Proceeding was moving forward, the Plaintiffs
in this action filed suit, relying on discovery from the Appraisal
Proceeding that had become publicly available. The Plaintiffs in
this action sought to consolidate this litigation with the
Appraisal Proceeding and to have a single trial on all issues, but
TransCanada--the real party in interest in the Appraisal
Proceeding--successfully opposed that result. This action then lay
dormant until after the issuance of the Appraisal Decision.

Finally, while the Appraisal Proceeding was moving forward, two
other stockholders filed an action in federal court that asserted
claims under the federal securities laws (the "Federal Securities
Action"). The plaintiffs in the Federal Securities Action also
asserted claims under Delaware law for breach of the fiduciary duty
of disclosure. The Defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss, but
the federal court declined to reach the claims for breach of
fiduciary duty (the "Federal Securities Decision").

Now, the Plaintiffs in the action wish to proceed with their
litigation. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that the Appraisal Decision and the Federal Securities
Decision mandate dismissal under principles of collateral estoppel.
The Defendants understandably want those prior rulings to be
binding, but the current Plaintiffs do not have a relationship with
either the petitioners in the Appraisal Proceeding or the
plaintiffs in the Federal Securities Action that would support the
application of issue preclusion.

As a fallback, the Defendants maintain that dismissal is warranted
under the doctrine of stare decisis because the Appraisal Decision
and the Federal Securities Decision are persuasive authorities that
ruled on the issues presented in this case. Unfortunately for the
Defendants, the Appraisal Decision addressed a narrow question: the
fair value of the Company as a standalone entity operating as a
going concern, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster points out.

The Appraisal Decision held that the sale process was sufficiently
reliable that the deal price provided a sound indication of the
Company's standalone value. The Appraisal Decision did not
determine whether Skaggs and Smith breached their fiduciary duties,
nor did it address the claim that the Company could have obtained a
higher deal price from TransCanada or from a competing bidder if
Skaggs and Smith had not acted as they did. The rulings in the
Federal Securities Decision likewise do not translate to the
current setting, because the district court applied the higher
federal pleading standard of plausibility to address claims under
the federal securities laws that required the pleading of
particularized facts.

Judge Laster finds that the allegations of the complaint support a
reasonably conceivable inference that Skaggs and Smith breached
their duty of loyalty. Although the allegations against TransCanada
are weaker, they support a reasonably conceivable inference that
TransCanada aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Skaggs
and Smith.

Under the circumstances, Judge Laster explains, it is reasonable to
infer at this stage that TransCanada knowingly participated in the
material omissions in the Proxy that concerned TransCanada's own
conduct. The Complaint, therefore, states a claim against
TransCanada for aiding and abetting these disclosure violations.

Judge Laster concludes that the Complaint pleads claims for breach
of fiduciary duty against Skaggs and Smith. It pleads a claim for
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against TransCanada.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 1,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2k7atmvy from
Leagle.com.

Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- Derrick Farrell --
dfarrell@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, in Wilmington,
Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware;
Stephen E. Jenkins -- SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com -- Marie M. Degnan
-- MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com -- ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., in Wilmington,
Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Christopher
J. Orrico -- christopher.orrico@blbglaw.com -- Alla Zayenchik --
alla.zayenchik@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN
LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Martin S. Lessner -- mlessner@ycst.com -- James M. Yoch, Jr. --
jyoch@ycst.com -- Paul J. Loughman -- ploughman@ycst.com -- Kevin
P. Rickert -- krickert@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR,
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Brian J. Massengill --
bmassengill@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew C. Sostrin --
msostrin@mayerbrown.com -- Linda X. Shi -- lshi@mayerbrown.com --
MAYER BROWN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Attorneys for Defendants.


CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beyers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM BEYERS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE
COMPANY, and LIBERTY MUTUAL AGENCY CORP, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01601-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, issues an Order:

   a. granting (i) the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment;
      (i) the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's
      Expert Witness Randal Adkins; (iii) the Defendants' Motion
      in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron
      Poland; and (iv) the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Exhibit H;
      and

   b. denying (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;
      and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
      Surreply.

A hailstorm damaged Beyers' Carmel, Indiana home on April 26, 2017.
On Aug. 30, 2017, Beyers filed a claim with Consolidated, his
insurer, for the damage.

After determining that the home required new shingles and vents on
the roof, as well as replacement of some gutters, downspouts, and
window screens, Consolidated paid Beyers $11,585.96 for the
unrepaired damage on Sept. 7, 2017.  This amount was adjudged the
actual cash value for the loss, tracking the policy's provision
that Consolidated would pay "no more than the actual cash value of
the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete."  If
Beyers repaired the damage, certain of the depreciation was
recoverable by him.  Consolidated also compensated Beyers to
replace some gutters and downspouts.

In calculating the amount owed to Beyers, Consolidated determined
that a general contractor was unnecessary to complete the repairs.
And to ascertain the shingle replacement cost, Consolidated relied
on pricing verified by the MRP Managed Material Program ("MRP").
Under this program, insureds or their contractors can purchase
shingles directly from suppliers nationwide at contractor or
discounted rates, and deliver the shingles to the site.

After receiving the $11,585.96 payment, Beyers never disputed or
inquired about this recompense and, indeed, never contacted
Consolidated about the claim at all.  Further, he repaired any of
the damage to his roof or gutters himself and never hired a
contractor or anyone inspect or repair any of the damage.  He did
speak with a public adjuster, Poland, but Poland never looked at
the house.

On April 22, 2019, Beyers individually, and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated, sued the Defendants for breach of
contract on four grounds, alleging that (i) the Defendants also
owed payment for general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP");
(ii) the Defendants did not account for the removal of flashing,
vents, and gable cornice returns in the estimate; (iii) the
Defendants failed to pay for the cost of a starter course of
shingles; and (iv) by using the MRP program, the Defendants did not
pay him the market price of replacement shingles in Indiana.

Eventually, the Defendants moved for summary judgment and Beyers
moved for class certification.

Defendants' Motions in Limine to Strike Beyers' Expert Witnesses

As an initial matter, Judge Pratt addresses the Defendants' Motions
in Limine to strike two of Beyers' expert witnesses: Adkins and
Poland.  Because these expert witnesses provide support for Beyers
on summary judgment and class certification, she first
examinesthese motions to determine whether their opinions should be
excluded, and their testimony and reports stricken.

Adkins is the founder and part owner of Rocklane Company General
Contractors, LLC, one of the largest residential roof repair
general contractors in central Indiana.  For over three decades he
has been involved in thousands of roof repair/replacement projects
in Indiana.  Beyers offers Adkins as a purported expert witness to
testify in support of class certification regarding: (1) the steps
to perform a shingles and gutter repair/replacement project and the
standard for determining where general contractor overhead and
profit is appropriate to complete the same; (2) the necessity of a
starter strip and the proper method to calculate the cost for the
same; and (3) the factors considered in selecting a shingles
supplier.

The Defendants move to strike Adkins' expert opinions in each of
these areas.  They contend that Adkins' opinion regarding inclusion
of GCOP for shingles and gutter repair/replacement jobs is both
unreliable and irrelevant.  Like Adkins' other opinions, the
Defendants argue that "his opinions regarding the benefits to using
a local shingles supplier have not been subjected to any testing
and thus are inherently unreliable."  They point out, "Adkins
admits that he has no knowledge regarding the MRP Program."

In response, Beyers argues that Adkins' opinion: "GCOP should be
included for all Gutter and Shingle Replacement Projects in Indiana
because such projects are almost always serviced by general
contractors."  He contends that the Defendants' demands for
exclusion of Mr. Adkins' opinions related to payment of GCOP due to
lack of peer review or testing are misguided.  Beyers argues that
Adkins' opinions do not run afoul of any existing legal standards.
Beyers also argues that though Adkins "does not possess any
specific information about MRP or its suppliers," he merely opines
"that general contractors will not automatically use MRP suppliers
because they offer discounted pricing, rather the decision is based
on a number of other critical factors."

Judge Pratt grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Adkins, striking his testimony and any
related evidence, including his expert report.  She is persuaded
that Adkins' GCOP opinion is unreliable and should be excluded:
Industry practices contradict his assertion that GCOP is owed on
every gutter and shingle repair job.  When an expert's "central
underlying premise is not only unsupported, but in fact contrary to
the generally accepted standard," a court should exclude his
opinion.  She also finds that Adkins' opinion on starter strips is
unreliable because it failed to address evidence directly
contradictory to his opinion.  And, because Adkins lacks even basic
familiarity with the MRP program, his opinions on whether payments
derived from it could adequately compensate Beyers lack reliability
and should be excluded.

Poland, the owner/president of Spartan Claims, LLC's duties include
supervising and adjusting and appraising property insurance claims.
He has personally adjusted almost five hundred claims on behalf of
his company.  Beyers offers the Poland, as a purported expert
witness regarding: (1) whether a general contractor's overhead and
profit should be paid for shingles and gutter repair/replacement
projects; (2) a roofing contractor's practice of using a starter
strip for the first course of shingles and method of estimating the
costs for same; (3) how roofing contractors select a shingles
supplier; (4) the inclusion by Consolidated for removal costs for
certain roof peripherals, such as flashing and vents, on the
Xactimate estimate used to pay the Plaintiff; and (5)
identification of purported class members.

Based on the following, the Defendants' ask the Court to strike
Poland's expert testimony and report.  They argue argue that (i)
Poland is not qualified to opine on roofing practices, (ii) any
opinions offered outside the scope of Poland's expert report should
be excluded, (iii) Poland's opinion about GCOP is unreliable and
irrelevant; (iv) no industry standard supports Poland's contention
that starter strips must be used; and (v) Poland lacks relevant
knowledge to discuss the MRP Program; and (vi) Poland's testimony
about roof removal costs is neither reliable nor relevant.

In response, Beyers notes that (i) Poland's extensive experience
and knowledge make him ideally suited to opine on steps and
coordination required to complete a Gutter and Shingle Repair
Project; (ii) Poland's opinion does not run [a]foul of any existing
legal standard or legitimate industry practices; (iii) Poland's
testimony about starter strips is reliable because he and Adkins
agree that it is the industry standard to use starter strips to
seal rake and eves whenever shingles on an entire slope or the
entire roof are replaced; (iv) Poland has never encountered any
contractor who uses the MRP program to purchase shingles; and (v)
Poland's methodology is "squarely aimed at providing a feasible
road map for ascertaining class members.

Judge Pratt grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron Poland, striking his testimony and
any related evidence, including his expert report.  Among other
things, she finds that (i) Poland is not qualified to offer his
opinions on construction practices because his knowledge, skill,
experience, training, and education does not qualify him to opine
on matters of roofing construction practices; (ii) Poland's own
testimony contradicts his GCOP opinion; (iii) Poland's opinion is
not supported by generally accepted practices in the field; (iv)
Poland's opinion is unreliable because he lacks relevant knowledge
to discuss the MRP Program; and (v) Poland identified purported
class members for proposed classes that the Plaintiff no longer
seeks to certify.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

The Defendants seek judgment as a matter of law as to Beyers' four
claims against them for breach of contract, following hail damage
to his roof.  They contend Beyers' Second Amended Complaint
conjures claims that do not exist as his insurance claim was
promptly investigated and paid by his insurer, and his four
individual claims -- breach of contract related to (1) GCOP, (2)
removal costs, (3) starter strips, and (4) replacement shingles --
are all defeated by the plain language of Consolidated's estimate
that was given to him, the policy of insurance, and common sense.

Judge Pratt explains that in Indiana, insurance contracts are
governed by the same rules of construction as any other contract,
citing Empire Fire v. Frierson, 49 N.E.3d 1075, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016).  Because no allegation advanced by Beyers forms the
foundation for a breach of contract claim against the Defendants,
she grants their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Among other things, she finds that (i) the opinion forwarded by
Fako is belied by industry publications; (ii) Beyers cannot broadly
proclaim that general contractors are necessary for every gutter
and shingle job; (iii) Beyers no longer maintains that Defendants
failed "to pay cost of dump fees, hauling, disposal and labor
associated with the removal of Flashing, Roof Vent, Continuous
Ridge Vent, and Gable Cornice Return; (iv) the Plaintiffs may not
amend their complaints through briefs opposing summary judgment
when new allegations cut against prior factual bases for liability;
and (v) the Defendants have demonstrated that Beyers could have
replaced his shingles at the price paid by Consolidated under the
MRP program for the exact shingles specified by the estimate.

Beyers' Motion for Class Certification

When a court decides that the claim of a putative named plaintiff
lacks merit -- such as on an adverse summary judgment ruling --
that decision "moots the question whether to certify the suit as a
class action," especially when "the ground on which the district
court threw out the plaintiff's claims would apply equally to any
other member of the class."  Because she grants the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Pratt must deny Beyers' Motion
for Class Certification as moot.  As demonstrated, no member of any
potential class could prevail on these claims.

For the reasons she explained, Judge Pratt grants the Defendants'
Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Randal
Adkins; grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike
Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron Poland; grants the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment; grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Exhibit H; grants the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Surreply; denies
the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply; and denies
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.  The Judge
dismisses the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Final Judgment
will the issued under separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/m28ve94n from Leagle.com.


CRATEJOY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cratejoy, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cratejoy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02589
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Cratejoy -- https://www.cratejoy.com/ -- is home to hundreds of
monthly subscription boxes for all hobbies, interests, and
passions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative class action suit, is pending.

On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company
separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive
Chairman) and Chief Financial Officer.

The court has consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain
of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and
internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's March 2,
2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was
conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in
connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products
through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint
does not quantify a damage request.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021.

Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.

CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Action in Canada Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim,
as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things,
an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified
amount.

The Amended Statement of Claim names the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), Chief Financial
Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial
Officer, and current and former members of the Board as defendants
and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression
under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law
misrepresentation.

The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of
the Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal
controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2,
2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was
conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in
connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products
through the wholesale channel, and the Company's subsequent
restatement.

The Amended Statement of Claim does not quantify a damage request.

Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.

CYTODYN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC:
CYDY). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.

CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC: CYDY)

Class Period: March 27, 2020 to March 9, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

CytoDyn is focused on the development and commercialization of a
drug named "Leronlimab" which has long been promoted as a potential
therapy for HIV patients. Since the beginning of the global
COVID-19 pandemic, however, CytoDyn has begun to aggressively tout
Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19.

Beginning on March 5, 2021 CytoDyn began issuing press releases
that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these
releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the
Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant.

After closing at $4.05 on March 5, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped
over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021,
CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35.

The complaint, filed on March 17, 2021, alleges that defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and
misleading statements concerning Leronlimab being used as a
treatment for Covid-19.

For more information on the CytoDyn class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CYDY

                      About Bragar Eagel

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

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

CYTODYN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed against CytoDyn,
Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the "Company") (OTCQB: CYDY) in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of CytoDyn
between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of CytoDyn, Inc., you
may, no later than May 17, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of  CytoDyn, Inc.

The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose that:

-- while the Company's stock price was sufficiently pumped with the
COVID-19 cure hype, long-term shareholders, including CEO Nader Z.
Pourhassan and CFO Michael Mulholland, dumped millions of shares;

-- the Company engaged in a wrongful scheme with its lender, Iliad
Research and Trading L.P. ("Iliad"), and its principal John Fife
("Fife"), whereby Iliad and other Fife entities operated as an
unregistered securities dealer for the Company; and

-- Iliad obtained a convertible promissory note from the Company
and converted the note into newly issued shares of the Company and
sold those shares into the public market at a profit, in violation
of the dealer registration requirements of the federal securities
laws.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.14 per share, or
28%, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn
shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35.

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

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

Contact:

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

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

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2065.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly
Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing,
among other things, Danimer Scientific's claims that Nodax, a
plant-based plastic which the Company markets, breaks down far more
quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The article alleges that
according to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many
claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." Further, the
article cites an expert as stating that broad claims about Nodax's
biodegradability "is not accurate" and is "greenwashing."

On this news, Danimer Scientific's share price fell $6.43 per
share, or 12%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021, the
next trading day, damaging investors.

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

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

Contacts
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]

DILLARD'S INC: Liberto Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Pamela Liberto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dillard's Inc., Case No.
2021-CA-000350 was removed from the First Judicial Circuit,
Escambia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida on March 25, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00517-MCR-EMT to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Dillard's -- https://www.dillards.com/ -- is a shop that offers
designer dresses, shoes, clothing, handbags, cosmetics and beauty,
bedding, lingerie, wedding registry items and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley Elizabeth Trehan, Esq.
          Jordan David Maglich, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - TAMPA FL
          401 E Jackson Street, Ste. 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 222-8180
          Email: ashley.trehan@bipc.com
                 jordan.maglich@bipc.com


DISNEY STORE: Vicario Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Disney Store USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Camila Vicario, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Disney Store USA, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-21131-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Disney Store online is now shopDisney.com --
https://www.shopdisney.com/ -- which operates as entertainment and
media company. The company provides clothes, toys, home decor,
movies, music, books, and video games for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bezalel Adin Stern, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          3050 K Street, NW
          Washington Harbour, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 342-8422
          Fax: (202) 342-8451
          Email: bstern@kelleydrye.com


DON & TOD: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DON & TOD GRUBERGER DBA WORK BOOT WAREHOUSE,
DON GRUBERGER, TOD GRUBERGER, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 24, 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 pay minimum
wage, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation,
failure to pay meal period compensation, failure to furnish
accurate wage and hour statements, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages,
and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked as a sales representative and as a truck
driver from approximately May 2018 through June 2020.

Don & Tod Gruberger, doing business as Work Boot Warehouse, is a
footwear retail company, with its principal place of business
located in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
         SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
         3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (818) 473-5003
         Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
         E-mail: contact@slawla.com

DOUBLE DOWN: Loses Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Claims in Benson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOUBLE DOWN
INTERACTIVE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C18-0525RSL (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants' Motion to
Strike Nationwide Class Allegations.

The Plaintiffs, Washington residents, allege that Defendant Double
Down, a Washington company, owns and operates several virtual
casinos that constitute illegal gambling enterprises under
Washington law.  They assert claims under Washington's Recovery of
Money Lost at Gambling Act ("RMLGA"), Washington's Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA"), and theories of unjust enrichment and seek
to recover their gambling losses.

Defendant Double Down, headquartered in Seattle, develops,
publishes, and maintains digital games for mobile and web-based
platforms.  The games are available worldwide.  The Defendants'
"Double Down Casino" allows consumers to play a variety of on-line
casino games using virtual chips.  Double Down provides to new
players an initial gift of one million free chips with which to
play in Double Down Casino.  When a player has burned through the
initial allotment of chips, he or she can purchase additional
virtual chips through the Casino's electronic store.

The Plaintiffs purchased and lost virtual chips in Double Down
Casino.  They allege that Double Down's games constitute illegal
gambling under the RMLGA, that the violation is an unfair or
deceptive act or practice for purposes of the CPA, and that
Defendants were unjustly enriched.

The named Plaintiffs hope to represent a class of "all persons in
the United States who purchased and lost chips by wagering at the
Double Down Casino" and to recover those losses on behalf of the
class.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to reform the proposed
class definition and limit the class to only residents of
Washington.  They argue that Washington law conflicts with the
gambling and consumer protection statutes of other states, that
imposing Washington law on conduct occurring in other states
violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and
the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and that Washington's choice of
law rules require the application of the law of each putative class
member's home state.

The Plaintiffs concede that there are material differences between
Washington's gambling and consumer protection statutes and those of
other states, but argue that when the connection between the claims
asserted and Washington are accurately characterized, application
of Washington law is proper.

In short, subject to constitutional limitations and the forum
state's choice-of-law rules, a court adjudicating a multistate
class action is free to apply the substantive law of a single state
to the entire class, citing In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
926 F.3d 539, 561 (9th Cir. 2019).  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to
do just that.  Double Down argues, however, that both the
Constitution and Washington's choice-of-law rules forbid
application of Washington law to the claims of non-resident class
members in the circumstances presented.

Constitutional Barriers to Application of Washington Law

Judge Lasnik holds that the conduct at issue, web- or app-based
game play and the sale or purchase of virtual chips, is neither
inherently national nor has it been subject to a uniform system of
regulation.  Because the RMLGA and the CPA neither discriminate in
favor of in-state commerce nor impose a significant burden on
interstate commerce, they are not prohibited by the dormant
Commerce Clause.

The Judge is also is confident that adequate notice to the absent
class members, along with an opportunity to be heard, to
participate, and to opt out, can be provided so as to satisfy the
dictates of the Due Process Clause.

Lastly, he holds that the Court can constitutionally exercise
jurisdiction over the absent class members, mooting the Defendants'
res judicata concerns.  The Defendants assert that applying
Washington substantive law on a nationwide basis is also
constitutionally limited by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of
Article IV, Section 1.  A judgment issued in the absence of
personal jurisdiction over a party is not entitled to full faith
and credit elsewhere.

Washington's Choice-of-Law

The Plaintiffs assert that Washington law applies to this case,
regardless where the consumer who purchased virtual chips in the
Double Down Casino resides.  The Defendants argue that the law of
each consumer's home state has the more significant relationship to
the dispute.  As a preliminary matter, when choice of law is
disputed, there must be an actual conflict between the laws or
interests of Washington and the laws or interests of another state
before Washington courts will engage in a conflict of laws
analysis.

To settle choice of law questions, Washington uses the most
significant relationship test as articulated by Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 145 (1971).  The most
significant relationship inquiry involves a two-step analysis.
Judge Lasnik first evaluates the contacts with each interested
jurisdiction, considering which contacts are most significant to
the occurrence and the parties and determining where those contacts
are found.  Second, he evaluates the interests and public policies
of the competing jurisdictions.

Judge Lasnik finds that while each state in which a putative class
member resides has some relationship with the causes of action
asserted in the case, Washington, as the domicile of Double Down
and some portion of the Plaintiff class, has a greater relationship
than does any other single state.  To the extent that (i) residents
of other states may lose access to Double Down Casino if the
Plaintiffs' claims succeed and (ii) some states may lose tax
revenues from sales/purchases of virtual chips, the Judge finds
that applying Washington law is nevertheless the "result that will
achieve the best possible accommodations" of the competing
policies.  Lastly, choosing the law of the state in which an
internet or app-based gambling operation is located for purposes of
a nationwide class action will make the law easier to determine and
apply with more predictable results.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik finds that neither
constitutional considerations nor the applicable choice-of-law
rules precludes the application of Washington law to the claims
asserted in the litigation, regardless where the putative class
members reside.  Therfore, he denied the Defendants' motion to
strike the nationwide class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/rsxedusx from Leagle.com.


DOUBLE ROBOTICS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Double Robotics, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Double Robotics, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02564 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Double Robotics -- https://www.doublerobotics.com/ -- is a
technology startup company that produces iPad-based telepresence
robots called Double and Double2.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DPI INC: Williams Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DPI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02532-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://iliveelectronics.com/, allegedly contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits
of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general
public through the website. These access barriers include, but not
limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) empty
links, (3) redundant links, and (4) linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

DPI, Inc. is a company that operates the iLive online retail store
across the United States, with its principal executive office
located at 900 N. 23rd Street, St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

E. MISHAN: Nisbett Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E. MISHAN & SONS, INC.,
d/b/a Alien Tape, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02277 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a blind and visually-impaired person, who cannot
use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered multiple
access barriers during his visits to the Defendant's Website,
www.tryalientape.com, the last occurring on or about February 8,
2021, which denied him substantially equal access similar to that
of sighted individuals, and the full enjoyment of the facilities,
goods, and services of the Website and of the Defendant's retail
operations. Allegedly, the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure and refusal
to comply with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired
persons seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit
the Defendant from violating Title III of the ADA and requiring the
Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into
full compliance with the requirements set forth in Title III of the
ADA, as well as compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. d/b/a Alien Tape is an online retailer of
various products that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks Unpaid Reporting Time for Route Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LEMM, an individual v. ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ECOLAB, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCVS08647 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2021) alleges
that the Plaintiff and other non-exempt Route Sales Managers were
was not paid in accordance with California law for unpaid reporting
time.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the relevant time period, he and
other non-exempt Ecolab employees were required to and did work
second shifts of less than two hours. Further, the Defendants did
not provide him and his fellow employees with accurate wage
statements under California law, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were current and former
employees of Ecolab in California who are/were non-exempt; who have
worked in California for Ecolab during the last three years as
Route Sales Managers (RSMs) who failed to receive reporting time
and split shift pay as required by California law.

Plaintiff Lemm is a resident of California. He has worked for
Ecolab Inc. from June of 2014 to the present. He performed work in
Fresno and Los Angeles Counties for the Defendant.

Defendant Ecolab is an international sanitation company
headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, with offices in the State of
California, including in this judicial district. The Defendant is
in the business of providing, among other things, sanitation and
pest control service and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and
appliance maintenance, repair and products, and food safety
services to restaurants, hospitals, food and beverage plants,
laundries, schools, and retail and commercial properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
          HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS,
          CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC
          5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
          Ventura, CA 93006-3 577
          Telephone: (805) 644-7111
          Facsimile: (805) 644-8296
          E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
          PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
          1746 S. Victoria Avenue, Suite 230
          Ventura, CA 93003
          Telephone: (805) 628-8220
          Facsimile: (805) 765-8600
          E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com
          bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com

ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Seresto Flea and Tick Collars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan Hettinger at usatoday.com reports that two pet owners who
claim their dogs either died or developed problems after using
Seresto flea and tick collars filed a class-action lawsuit against
Elanco Animal Health, alleging it misrepresented the safety of its
product.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of California in Los
Angeles, comes just days after a congressional subcommittee asked
Elanco to voluntarily recall the flea and tick collars in the wake
of reporting by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting and
USA TODAY on thousands of incident reports about pet and human harm
linked to the collar. The lawsuit cites the news outlets'
reporting. Elanco declined to voluntarily recall the product.

The lawsuit is likely the first of "dozens," said Spencer Sheehan,
a New York-based consumer liability attorney with a history of
filing class-action suits. He is part of the legal team
representing the plaintiffs in this case and said he expects other
law firms to file similar cases across the country.

Colleen Dekker, a spokeswoman for Elanco, said the company does not
comment on pending litigation. In a previous interview, she said
Elanco has investigated reports of incidents and deaths in which
the pet collar was present and "there's nothing that suggests it's
the active ingredients in the collar that's at fault."

Seresto has two active pesticide ingredients: imidacloprid and
flumethrin.

The two plaintiffs blame their dogs' issues on Seresto.

Faye Hemsley of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, claims in the suit that
she purchased a Seresto pet collar in January 2020 for her
13-year-old terrier mix named Tigger Shadow. Tigger was fine at an
annual veterinary check-up on Feb. 19 but suddenly died five days
later in Hemsley's son's arms, the suit claims.

The other plaintiff, Aitana Vargas of Los Angeles, first purchased
a Seresto collar for her 10-year-old Siberian Husky named Lolita in
March 2020 and the second one in November 2020, the lawsuit claims.
Two months later, Vargas noticed a lump on the dog's neck near the
site of the pet collar that was later diagnosed as cancer and
removed during an emergency surgery in January this year.

"Had Plaintiffs known the Seresto collar Products would cause, or
increase the likelihood of causing, serious injury and/or death,
they would not have purchased them," according to the lawsuit.

Since the collar was sold beginning in 2012, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has received more than 75,000 incident reports
about pet and human harm linked to use of the collar. These
incident reports include at least 1,698 pet deaths and 907 humans
harmed.

The EPA is in charge of regulating products that contain
pesticides. The agency has known about these incidents for years
but has not informed the public of the potential risks associated
with this product, said Karen McCormack, a retired EPA employee who
worked as both a scientist and communications officer.

McCormack said the collars have the most incidents of any pesticide
pet product she's ever seen.

The reporting by the Midwest Center and USA TODAY prompted
congressional action. On March 17, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
(D-Illinois), chairman of the subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, sent letters to Elanco, asking the company to recall the
product and issue full refunds to customers, and Bayer, asking the
company to release information about the toxicity of the product.

Seresto collars were developed by German pharmaceutical giant
Bayer, but the company sold its Animal Health division, which
includes the Seresto collar, to Elanco for $7.5 billion in 2020. In
2019, Bayer reported annual revenues of more than $300 million on
sales of the collar.

Dekker, the Elanc spokeswoman, said in a recent interview that the
incident reports are "raw data" that need to be further
investigated.

Dekker said Elanco has investigated all 1,698 death incident
reports and found no link in those deaths to the active ingredients
in the pesticides. Each report came back as either "unlikely" or
"unclassified," Dekker said. She said the company either conducts
these investigations internally or hires out a group to investigate
the death.

"There's nothing that suggests it's the active ingredients in the
collar that's at fault," Dekker said.

Dekker said the company has sold more than 25 million collars and
has an incident report of .3%, meaning that about 1-in-300 pets
have an adverse effect. Dekker said the vast majority of adverse
effects are dermal issues, such as irritation, redness or hair
loss.

The lawsuit alleges that Elanco "misrepresented the Product through
affirmative statements, half-truths, and omissions regarding the
safety of the Product." Because of that, the company was able to
sell the product for more than what it would have otherwise.

This story is a collaboration between USA TODAY and the Midwest
Center for Investigative Reporting. The center is an independent,
nonprofit newsroom covering agribusiness, Big Ag and related
issues. USA TODAY is funding a fellowship at the center for
expanded coverage of agribusiness and its impact on communities.
[GN]

ELEVATE CREDIT: Bid to Nix Suit Related to TFI Operations Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's a
motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the operations
of Think Finance, Inc. (TFI) prior to and immediately after the
2014 spin-off.

A class action lawsuit against Elevate was filed on August 14, 2020
in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of usurious
interest and aiding and abetting various racketeering activities
related to the operations of Think Finance, Inc. (TFI) prior to and
immediately after the 2014 spin-off.

On October 26, 2020, Elevate filed a motion to dismiss and awaits a
ruling on that motion.

Elevate views this lawsuit as without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.

Elevate said, "Based upon preliminary settlement discussions in the
fourth quarter of 2020, we accrued a contingent loss in the amount
of $17 million for estimated losses related to the TFLT and class
action disputes at December 31, 2020."

Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers
and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not
well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for
better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront
installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas.


ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Sopheary Sanh Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing
a class action suit initiated by Sopheary Sanh.

On January 27, 2020, Sopheary Sanh filed a class action complaint
in the Western District Court in the state of Washington against
Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity
Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify
Financial.

The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and Personify Financial
have violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act by engaging in
unfair or deceptive practices, and seeks class certification,
injunctive relief to prevent solicitation of consumers to apply for
loans, monetary damages and other appropriate relief, including an
award of costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees. The lawsuit was removed to federal court.

On January 12, 2021, the court granted Rise's motion to dismiss,
however, Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 25, 2021,
suing Elevate alleging it is the true lender and violated
Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and
it intends to vigorously defend its position.

Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers
and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not
well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for
better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront
installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas.

ENDEAVOR LEADS: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Wiley Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONA WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENDEAVOR LEADS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00739-GLR (D. Md., March 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made telemarketing calls
to consumers, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior
express written consent. The unauthorized solicitation telephone
calls have allegedly harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and
enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the
phone's hardware and the consumption of memory on the phone.

Endeavor Leads LLC is a telemarketing company headquartered in
Pasadena, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Aimee Bader, Esq.
         ADVOCATES LAW OFFICE, LLC
         2029 Fleet Street
         Baltimore, MD 21231
         Telephone: (410) 537-5950
         E-mail: anesquire1@yahoo.com

                - and –

         Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
         KAUFMAN P.A.
         400 NW 26th Street
         Miami, FL 33127
         Telephone: (305) 469-5881
         E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv
Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V.
Campanelli, is still pending.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the
pricing of various generic pharmaceutical products.

In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' and Retirement
Board Employees' Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in
the action.

In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in February 2020.

In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to
dismiss, allowing other aspects of the lead plaintiff's claims to
proceed. In June 2020, the lead plaintiff moved for class
certification.

In February 2021, the court replaced the existing lead plaintiff
with the Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund, appointed
Alexandre Pelletier, Nathan Dole and Wayne Wingard as co-lead
plaintiffs and ordered supplemental briefing on class
certification. The motion for class certification remains pending.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.

ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Albiges Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendants motion
to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Benoit
Albiges v. Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise
Coleman, and Mark T. Bradley, is pending.

In June 2020, a putative class action entitled Benoit Albiges v.
Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and
Mark T. Bradley was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey by an individual shareholder on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the
marketing and sale of opioid medications and the New York
Department of Financial Services' administrative action against the
Company, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Endo Health Solutions
Inc. (EHSI), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. (PPCI).

In September 2020, the court appointed Curtis Laakso lead plaintiff
in the action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
November 2020.

In January 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.

ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and its
subsidiaries continue to defend opioid-related class action suits.

Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada
have filed suit against the company and/or certain of its
subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
(PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and in Canada, Paladin, as well as various
other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and/or others,
asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged sales, marketing
and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid
medications, including certain of the company's products.

As of February 18, 2021, filed cases in the U.S. of which the
company was aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20
cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,890 cases
filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 300 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers and approximately 185 cases filed
by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative
class actions.

The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on
behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids,
an action filed by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta on behalf of
a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada,
as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of
Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid
medications.

The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including
but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.

The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps
to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and
diversion.

Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without
limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory,
punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil
penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs and/or other relief.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal
multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. Other cases are pending in
various federal or state courts.

The cases are at various stages in the litigation process. The
first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties (Track
One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go forward
after most defendants settled.

EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the
Track One plaintiffs in September 2019 which provided for payments
totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT(R) and/or
ADRENALIN(R).

Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be
entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive
resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement
agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was
not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of
our subsidiaries.

The earliest trial is currently scheduled for April 2021; however,
trials may occur earlier or later as timing remains uncertain due
to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. Most cases remain at
the pleading and/or discovery stage.

In February 2021, the MDL court declined to certify a proposed
class of legal guardians of children born with neonatal abstinence
syndrome; plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration.

In September 2019, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI received subpoenas from
the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking
documents and information regarding the marketing, sale and
distribution of opioid medications in New York.

In June 2020, DFS commenced an administrative action against the
Company, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI alleging violations of the New
York Insurance Law and New York Financial Services Law.

The statement of charges alleges that fraudulent or otherwise
wrongful conduct in the marketing, sale and/or distribution of
opioid medications caused false claims to be submitted to insurers
and seeks civil penalties for each allegedly fraudulent
prescription as well as injunctive relief. The action is currently
set for hearing in June 2021.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.

ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit involving alleged price-fixing of generic
drugs currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs, state attorneys
general and other governmental entities have filed cases against
the company's subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and/or, in
some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
(PPCI), as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some
instances, other corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging
price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to
generic pharmaceutical products.

These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated
and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. There is also a proposed class action filed in the
Federal Court of Canada on behalf of a proposed class of Canadian
purchasers.

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages,
treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and
other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under
these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs generally seek to
hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly
and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged
conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured
and/or sold by a particular defendant.

The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and
discovery is ongoing.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.

ENDO INT'L: Dismissal of Ranitidine Related Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal made by
the Third Party Payers in the suit related to Ranitidine, is
pending.

In June 2020, an MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products
Liability Litigation, was expanded to add Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
(PPI) and numerous other manufacturers and distributors of generic
ranitidine as defendants.

The claims are generally based on allegations that under certain
conditions the active ingredient in Zantac(R) and generic
ranitidine medications can break down to form an alleged carcinogen
known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

PPI and its subsidiaries have not manufactured or sold ranitidine
since 2016.

The MDL includes individual plaintiffs as well as putative classes
of consumers and third-party payers. The complaints assert a
variety of claims, including but not limited to various product
liability, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, statutory and
unjust enrichment claims.

Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without
limitation, compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages;
restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys'
fees and costs as well as injunctive and/or other relief.

The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including
orders directing the filing of "master" and short-form complaints,
establishing a census registry process for potential claimants and
addressing various discovery issues.

In December 2020, the court dismissed the master complaints as to
PPI and several other defendants with leave to amend certain
claims.

Third-party payers have appealed the dismissal of their master
class action complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Other plaintiffs have filed amended master
complaints or sought leave to do so.

In particular, in February 2021, various plaintiffs filed an
amended master personal injury complaint, a consolidated amended
consumer economic loss class action complaint and a motion for
leave to file a consolidated medical monitoring class action
complaint.

PPI is not named as a defendant in the consumer economic loss
complaint or the proposed medical monitoring complaint.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.

ETORO USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ETORO USA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02291 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) alleges the Defendant of
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

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

The Plaintiff claims that he has encountered multiple access
barriers during his visits to the Defendant's Website,
www.etoro.com, the last occurring in March 2021. These access
barriers denied him full and equal access to the Defendant's
facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. Specifically, these access barriers have
deterred him from learning about those various financial services
for purchase, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired
persons, to seek for a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
the its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory
damages, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages
and fines, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, litigations
costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Etoro USA LLC is a financial services company that owns and
operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


EVENING EVENTS: Yong Sues Over Absconding Tips & Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
TELIBA YONG, OLIVIA FELIX, and SKYLAR SUTTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENING EVENTS, LLC dba
EDEN f/k/a HALO, a Texas Limited Liability Company; ALEJANDRO
MENDEZ, an individual, CHRIS DOE, an individual; ERIC DOE, an
individual, DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-00710 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021)
alleges causes of action against the Defendants for damages due to
the Defendants' evading of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding
with the Plaintiffs' tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including
in the form of "House Fees."

These causes of action arise from the Defendants' willful actions
while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the preceding
three-year period to the filing of this complaint. During their
time being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were
allegedly denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part
of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."

The Plaintiffs worked at Defendants' principal place of business
located at 6333 Richmond Ave., Houston, Texas 77057.

The Defendants are owners and directors of the Corporate
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com

EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the class action suit entitled,
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank
Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and
Steven Wigginton, is pending.

On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class
action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.


An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case,
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank
Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer and
Steven Wigginton, alleges that Evolent's executives made false or
misleading statements regarding its business with Passport.

A second amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the
amended complaint, was filed on June 8, 2020.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in response on June 22, 2020
and the briefing was completed on July 17, 2020; the parties are
now waiting for the court's decision.

Evolent said, "We and the individuals dispute these claims and
intend to defend the matter vigorously. This litigation could
result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's
resources and attention, which could harm our business and the
value of our common stock."

Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States. The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

EVOLENT HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Evolent Health, Inc. (NYSE: EVH) ("Evolent" or the "Company")
against certain of its officers and directors. Specifically, a
class-action lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Virginia
against Evolvent and certain of its current and former officers
recently survived, in part, certain defendants' attempts to have
the case dismissed.

According to the lawsuit filed, the case arises from Defendants'
false and/or misleading statements and/or failure to disclose that:
Evolent acquired Passport despite previously stating that it had no
intention of buying any health plans for the foreseeable future and
that acquiring health plans was not part of its strategic focus. In
addition, in acquiring Passport, and contrary to the Company's
positive statements during the Class Period, Evolent admitted that
Passport was performing poorly and was not being run or managed
properly, despite paying massive management fees to Evolent for
what was previously understood by investors to be an aligned
relationship.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Evolvent holding
shares before March 3, 2017, you may have standing to hold Evolent
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the Company's officers and
directors by making them personally responsible. You may also be
able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you have owned Evolvent's shares since before
March 3, 2017, you can [Click here to join this action]. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

                        About Johnson Fistel

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

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

FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Ryan Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-02017 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

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

Facebook, Inc. is a social media company with its principal place
of business and headquarters located at 1601 Willow Road in Menlo
Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com

                 - and –

         Brian P. Murray, Esq.
         Lee Albert, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         230 Park Avenue, Suite 300
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 682-5340
         E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                 lalbert@glancylaw.com

FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHARI ROSENMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 21-CIV-00896,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 25, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02108 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged used of its monopoly
power to undermine consumer privacy in violation of Section 4 of
the Sherman Act and Section 15 of the Clayton Act.

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

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
         WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
         2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
         Palo Alto, CA 94306
         Telephone: (650) 858-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
         E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com

FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Remand of Dernoshek to State Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Eeagles of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand to state court the case, LOGAN DERNOSHEK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-CV-56 (M.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiff seeks to remand the putative class action to state
court.  He filed suit against the Defendants in the Superior Court
of North Carolina.  He brings numerous state law claims arising out
of fees the defendants charged him to confirm that he was not
delinquent in his homeowner's association fees when he sold his
residence.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated
three North Carolina statutes: (1) a North Carolina statute
prohibiting transfer fee covenants, N.C. Gen. Stat Section 39A-1 et
seq.; (2) the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 et seq.; and (3) the North
Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-50 et seq.
He also asserts North Carolina common law claims for negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.
Finally, he asks for a declaratory judgment that the fees charged
are illegal transfer fees in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
39A-1 et seq.

Mr. Dernoshek seeks certification of a class comprised of "all
individuals who were charged and paid Resale Fees to FirstService
for property sales in North Carolina," and of a subclass of "all
individuals who paid Resale Fees to FirstService and HomeWise for
property sales in North Carolina."

After NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc., doing business as
HomeWiseDocs.com, was named as a Defendant in the amended
complaint, it removed the case to the Middle District pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  In his
motion to remand, Mr. Dernoshek contends that HomeWise has not met
the amount in controversy required for CAFA removal and that the
"local controversy" exception applies.  After HomeWise filed
evidence in support of the amount in controversy, Mr. Dernoshek
implicitly conceded subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA,
ignoring the issue in his reply brief and addressing only the issue
of whether the local controversy exception applies.

Judge Eagles opines that it is undisputed that the class has more
than 100 members and that the parties are minimally diverse.
HomeWise plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded
the jurisdictional threshold.  When challenged by Mr. Dernoshek in
the motion to remand, HomeWise provided evidence demonstrating that
the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  Mr. Dernoshek has
not disputed that evidence nor offered any evidence to the
contrary.

For jurisdictional purposes only, the Judge finds by the
preponderance of the evidence that there are over 100 class members
and likely to be at least 8,000 class members, that the parties are
minimally diverse, and that the amount in controversy is well over
$5 million.  Specifically, Mr. Dernoshek is seeking thousands of
dollars in actual, statutory, treble, and punitive damages for each
class member.  Indeed, Mr. Dernoshek alleges each class member is
entitled to up to $4,000 on the Debt Collection Act claim, which
results in well over $5 million in controversy on that claim alone.
Hence, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2).

Mr. Dernoshek contends that the case is subject to mandatory remand
under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction in
Section 1332(d)(4)(A).  He, as the party seeking remand, has the
burden of proving that this exception applies.

Judge Eagles finds that Mr. Dernoshek has shown, without dispute by
HomeWise, that all but two of these requirements have been met.
For purposes of her order, the Judge finds by the preponderance of
the evidence that at least one Defendant, FirstService, is a
citizen of North Carolina, the state in which the action was
originally filed; that FirstService's conduct forms a significant
basis for the claims asserted; that Mr. Dernoshek seeks significant
relief from FirstService, the local defendant; and that the
principal injuries occurred in North Carolina.

This leaves two requirements for consideration: the
two-thirds-citizenship requirement and the no-other-class-action
requirement.  The Judge holds that it is not at all clear that Mr.
Dernoshek has shown that over two-thirds of the putative class are
citizens of North Carolina.  She also finds by a preponderance of
the evidence that another class action has been filed within the
relevant time asserting the same or similar factual allegations
against HomeWise on behalf of the same or other persons.
Therefore, the local controversy exception does not apply and
remand is not required.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Eagles concludes that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the class action, which has
more than 100 class members, an amount in controversy exceeding $5
million, and minimally diverse parties.  Mr. Dernoshek has not
established that the "local controversy" exception applies.

Therefore, the motion to remand is denied.  HomeWise's motion to
file a sur-reply is denied as moot.  The motions to dismiss remain
pending subject to completion of the briefing.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6es6hrr4 from
Leagle.com.


FIVEFOUR GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FiveFour Group LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. FiveFour Group LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02588 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Five Four Group -- https://www.fivefourgroup.com/ -- is a holding
company for fashion brands and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLINT, MI: Rogers' Claims v. LAN & LAD in Flint Water Cases Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To Rogers
v. Snyder, et al., Case 5:18-cv-10713-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss.

The moving Defendants are Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., and
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C. (together, "LAN"); and Leo A. Daly
Company ("LAD").

The case is one of the many cases that are collectively referred to
as the Flint Water Cases.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants, a combination of private and public individuals and
entities, set in motion a chain of events that led to bacteria and
lead leaching into the City of Flint's drinking water.  The
Plaintiffs in the various Flint Water Cases claim that the
Defendants subsequently concealed, ignored, or downplayed the risks
that arose from their conduct, causing them serious harm.  These
Plaintiffs contend that the impact of what has since been called
the Flint Water Crisis is still with them and continues to cause
them problems.

The Plaintiff in the case is Gradine Rogers.  The Defendants are:
(1) Veolia North America, Inc., Veolia North America, LLC, and
Veolia Water North America Operatizing Services, LLC (together,
"VNA"); (2) Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and Lockwood, Andrews
& Newnam, P.C.'s (together, "LAN"); (3) Leo A. Daly Company
("LAD"); (4) the City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose,
Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson ("City
Defendants"); and (4) former Gov. Richard D. Snyder, Stephen Busch,
Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Adam Rosenthal ("State of
Michigan Defendants").  In previous Flint Water decisions, the
Court has set forth descriptions of each of these Defendants and
adopts those descriptions as if fully set forth in the case.
In August 2020, the putative class Plaintiffs and individual
Plaintiffs in the Flint Water Cases reached a proposed settlement
with State of Michigan Defendants for $600 million.  In October
2020, the same Plaintiffs and the City Defendants agreed to a $20
million proposed settlement.

Because of the progress toward a partial settlement, the Court
granted a stay of proceedings in the Flint Water Cases involving
the settling Defendants (Carthan v. Snyder, No. 16-10444, ECF Nos.
1323; 1324; 1353).  It preliminarily approved the partial
settlement on Jan. 21, 2021.  The proposed settlement is still
subject to final approval by the Court.

The Plaintiffs and other qualifying individuals in the Flint Water
Cases have until March 29, 2021, to decide whether to participate
in the settlement.  If Rogers decides to participate and if the
Court grants final approval of the settlement, then, in
consideration for a monetary award, the Plaintiff's claims against
the City and State of Michigan Defendants will be dismissed.

Accordingly, and pursuant to the stay, the Court denies without
prejudice the City and State of Michigan Defendants' pending
motions to dismiss.  If Rogers opts out of the settlement and
proceeds with her litigation against the City and State of Michigan
Defendants, they may re-file their motions to dismiss pursuant to
the schedule and requirements set forth in the Master Settlement
Agreement for those Plaintiffs who wish to proceed with
litigation.

VNA also has a pending motion to dismiss.  However, VNA and the
Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of all VNA
related claims.  Accordingly, VNA's motion to dismiss is denied as
moot.

The only remaining motions to dismiss for determination, therefore,
are LAN's and LAD's motions.

The Plaintiff alleges professional negligence and punitive damages
against Defendants LAN and LAD.

Judge Levy opines that her Short Form Complaint contains no factual
allegations against LAN or LAD.  Accordingly, all of the facts that
the Plaintiff relies on as the basis for her claims against LAD and
LAD derive from the Master Complaint in Walters v. Flint, No.
17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874 (6th Cir. August 2, 2019).  In Marble v.
Snyder, 453 F.Supp.3d 970 (E.D. Mich. 2020), and Brown v. Snyder,
No. 18-10726, 2020 WL 1503256 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020), the Court
analyzed the Master Complaint's allegations as they related to
those plaintiffs' legionella-based claims.  And in the case, as in
Marble and Brown, the fact that the Plaintiff alleges legionella
exposure rather than lead exposure does not change the core
analysis of the Plaintiff's claims.

As to professional negligence, the Judge finds that neither LAN nor
LAD's motions to dismiss present any arguments that differ from the
arguments they presented in Walters, Marble, or Brown.  In Walters,
the Court denied LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
professional negligence claims.  LAN and LAD do not present any
reasons to deviate from that Opinion and Order.  Accordingly, for
reasons set forth in Walters, LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss are
denied.  The Plaintiff's claims for professional negligence against
LAN and LAD may continue.

As to punitive damages, in Marble and Brown, the Plaintiffs brought
identical claims for punitive damages against LAN and LAD.  In
those cases, the Court dismissed the claims for punitive damages
because the Plaintiffs in those cases acknowledged that punitive
damages are not available for negligence claims.  Judge Levy holds
that the result here is no different.  The Plaintiff's punitive
damages claims against LAN and LAD are dismissed.

LAD also moves for an order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for
lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and for failure to state a cause of action.  It acknowledges that
the Court was presented with the same motion and arguments in
Carthan, which the Court denied.  LAD also moved to preserve
similar arguments in Walters and in Brown.  Because these arguments
were made for preservation purposes, the Court did not address them
in those cases, and the same result applies in Rogers' case.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Levy (i) denied as moot VNA's
motion to dismiss, (ii) denied the City and State of Michigan's
motions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling if the Plaintiff
opts out of the settlement or it does not receive final approval,
and (iii) granted in part and denied in part LAN and LAD's motions
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fdzb3jxm from Leagle.com.


FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. d/b/a/ Champs
US; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-589180, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02040 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 provide meal breaks, failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay proper minimum wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc., doing business as Champs US, is an
American sportswear and footwear retailer, headquartered in New
York, New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Jason M. Richardson, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 544-1900
         Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
         E-mail: jmrichardson@shb.com

FUBOTV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of fuboTV Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

FUBO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14118&wire=1

fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO)

FUBO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 23, 2020 -
January 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14118&wire=1

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]

FULLY LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fully LLC. The case
is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Fully LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02563-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Fully LLC -- https://www.fully.com/en-eu/ -- offers standing desks,
ergonomic office chairs, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Blumenfeld Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUCHEL BLUMENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01394 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Citibank, N.A.
primarily for personal, family or household purposes on behalf o
creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and
Internet.

According to the complaint, Citibank, N.A. has contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
February 12, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff which offers ways to settle. However, the letter is false
and deceptive to the Plaintiff because it states that the payment
must be an exact amount, yet it also states that the amount may
increase and the amount owed on the day the Plaintiff pays may be
greater. The Plaintiff is confused whether the total amount would
increase and thereby the settlement offer will increase as well.

The Defendant has allegedly violated Section 1692e as the letter is
open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of
which is inaccurate, and by making a false and misleading
representation.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, litigation costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Bryan Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE BRYAN, JEN MACLEOD, ALISON FLEISSNER, KELLY MCKEON, and
TERESA HAGMAIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00349 (E.D. Va., Mar. 19, 2021) is an action against
the Defendant for its negligent, reckless, and intentional practice
of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the heavy metals
or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
or advertising of, or statements concerning the Defendant's baby
food products.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com

               -and-

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

               -and-

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

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

               -and-

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


GILLENWATER FLOORING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gillenwater Flooring
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gillenwater
Flooring Center, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02607 (S.D.N.Y., March 25,
2021).

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

Gillenwater Flooring -- https://gillenwaterflooring.com/ -- is a
source for flooring in the Maryville area.[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


GOOGLE LLC: Conspires With Social Casino App Makers, Andrews Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ANDREWS and JOHN SARLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-02100 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the California
Business and Professions Code and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly partnered with
slot machine companies in order to develop illegal social casino
apps such as DoubleDown Casino. The participation of Google in the
illegal Internet gambling enterprise allows social casino
developers to make the distribution and payment processing online
faster and efficient. As a result of the Defendant's action, more
consumers, including the Plaintiffs, become addicted to social
casino apps, maxing out their credit cards with purchases amounting
to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Consumers
addicted to social casinos suffer a variety of non-financial
damages ranging from depression to divorce to attempted suicide,
says the suit.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                  
         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         Todd Logan, Esq.
         Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                 tlogan@edelson.com
                 bsilverkorn@edelson.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit as Conspirator With Slot Machine Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that consumers filed a class-action
complaint in the Northern District of California against Google for
hosting social casino phone apps, illegally profiting from gambling
games, and being a co-conspirator with technology companies who
developed the social casinos.

According to the complaint, for about the last ten years, "the
world's leading slot machine makers -- companies like International
Game Technology, Scientific Games Corporation, and Aristocrat
Leisure -- have teamed up with American technology companies to
develop a new product line: social casinos," which are gambling
apps that mimic the "'Vegas-style' experience" of slot machine
gambling.

The plaintiffs asserted that the social casino companies, "along
with Google, Facebook, and Apple (the Platforms), have found a way
to smuggle slot machines into the homes of consumers nationwide."
(Neither the slot machine makers nor Facebook and Apple are party
to the lawsuit.)

The plaintiffs claimed that social casinos, like in-person slot
machines, allow users to purchase a virtual "chip" in exchange for
real money and then to gamble these chips on the slot machine game
to win more chips and continue gambling. Allegedly, in an exemplary
social casino "players purchase 'chip packages' costing up to
$499.99. . . . . But unlike Las Vegas slots . . . . purchased chips
and won chips alike can be used only for more slot machine
'spinning.'" The plaintiffs averred that social casinos combine
"the addictive aspects of traditional slot machines with the power
of the Platforms . . . . to leverage big data and social network
pressures to identify, target, and exploit consumers prone to
addictive behaviors."

Reportedly, the social casinos must work with the Platforms to
profit at a high level. The plaintiffs claimed that the Platforms
"retain high-spending users and collect player data, (are) a
trustworthy marketplace to conduct payment transactions, and
(provide) the technological means to update their apps with
targeted new content designed to keep addicted players spending
money." Additionally, the plaintiffs contented that by using Google
"for distribution and payment processing, the social casinos
entered into a mutually beneficial business partnership. In
exchange for distributing the casino games, providing them valuable
data and insight about their players, and collecting money from
consumers, Google (and the other Platforms) take a 30 percent
commission off of every wager, earning them billions in revenue."
The plaintiffs compared this to traditional casinos, where the
"house" takes only 1 to 15 percent.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that social casinos are
illegal under the gambling laws of many states. Nevertheless,
Google and the other Platforms purportedly continue to host and
participate in social casinos despite their illegality, according
to the plaintiffs. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed that Google
and the other Platforms are "all liable as co-conspirators to an
illegal gambling enterprise," for providing access to customers,
hosting their games, and processing payments.

The plaintiffs accused Google of violating the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law, as well as for racketeering activities and collection of
unlawful debts.

The plaintiffs seek class certification and for the plaintiffs and
their counsel to represent the class; restitution; declaratory and
injunctive relief; and an award for damages and other costs. The
plaintiffs are represented by Edelson PC.

This lawsuit comes after a wave of lawsuits against gambling games
and social casinos and their hosting platforms, like Google. For
example, Google was sued over DoubleU Games, and Zynga Games's
gambling games. Additionally, a similar lawsuit to the instant
action was filed against Apple that accused it of being a
co-conspirator for social casinos.[GN]

GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit in California Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No.
19-cv-10701-DDP-E, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and two of its former officers.

The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our
business strategy.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were
misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details
regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our
financial performance.

The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities
class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No.
20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for
the Central District of California, against the company and certain
of its officers and directors.

The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing
alleged in the first lawsuit described above.

The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged.
These cases have been related. The company had not yet responded to
the complaints in these matters.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.

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

Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It
is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its
GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena,
California.

GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Charging Commissions on Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZAY TOON INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01590 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract, conversion, and violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and the Nevada Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful business practices
that include: (1) failing to disclose in its standard form
contracts that it does not take telephone orders and that instead
it creates a new telephone number for each restaurant that is
advertised on Grubhub's website that, when dialed, redirects the
call to the restaurant itself and records the call; (2)
misrepresenting that commissions will only be charged on actual
food and beverage orders; (3) failing to disclose in its standard
form contracts Grubhub's method, if any, for determining which
phone calls generate actual food and beverage orders; (4) failing
to disclose that Grubhub does not undertake any analysis to
determine which telephone calls actually result in food and
beverage orders before charging commissions for them; and (5)
misrepresenting that commissions are being charged for orders
placed through GrubHub.com and generated by Grubhub.

The Defendant's actions, and failure to act when required, have
caused the Plaintiff and tens of thousands of other restaurants
across the country to suffer harm, including but not limited to
lost profits.

Zay Toon, Inc. is a company that owns and operates restaurant,
Zaytoon Restaurant & Market, located at 3655 S. Durango Drive, Las
Vegas, Nevada.

Grubhub Holdings Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared
food ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local
restaurants, with its principal place of business located at 3166 N
Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
         BLAU & MALMFELDT
         566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
         Chicago, IL 60661
         Telephone: (312) 443-1600
         Facsimile: (312) 443-1665
         E-mail: pmalmfeldt@blau-malmfeldt.com

                - and –

         Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
         Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
         CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
         361 W. Lancaster Ave.
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
         E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
                 ZPB@chimicles.com

                - and –

         James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
         CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
         8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Telephone: (314) 725-7700
         Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
         E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

HELIX ENERGY: Paul Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PAUL and VICTOR GENERA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. & HELIX
WELL OPS INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00717 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021)
alleges that Helix did not pay the Plaintiffs and Members of the
Class one and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours
any worked over 40 in a workweek.

According to the complaint, Helix paid the Plaintiffs and Members
of the Class on a "day rate" basis as subsea engineers. Helix paid
them and similarly situated subsea engineers a day rate for their
work, and did not pay them overtime, even though they routinely
overtime. Thus, they are suing Helix for unpaid overtime under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and seek to represent a
collective action group of similarly situated individuals, the suit
says.

Helix is a marine contractor and operator of offshore oil and gas
properties and production facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
          Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
          OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 401-3557
          Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
          E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com
                  mark@osattorneys.com

HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal as to
the Company in the purported shareholder class action suit
entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et
al., remains stayed.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of
its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

The complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April
27, 2017 and on September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the
plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional
allegations from the administrative order agreed to by the SEC and
the Company in December 2018, which was supplemented by reference
to the Company's subsequently filed litigation against former
executives.

On September 30, 2019, the federal district court of New Jersey
denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the April 27, 2017
judgment and a related motion to allow the filing of a proposed
fifth amended complaint. On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument had
been scheduled for June 19, 2020.

As a result of the Company's bankruptcy, the appeal was stayed as
to the Company, but the plaintiffs advocated that the appeal could
proceed against the individual defendants.

On October 13, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for relief against the
individual defendants since the motion was not timely filed.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides airport and off-airport vehicle rental and leasing
services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


HP INC: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W.,
et al., Plaintiffs v. HP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01260-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California:

    (i) grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
        amended complaint with leave to amend;

   (ii) grants the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice; and

  (iii) grants the Defendants' request for judicial notice.

The matter arose in connection with statements by corporate
executives of HP regarding HP's Four Box Model.  HP is a global
provider of personal computers, printers, and related supplies.  In
2015, it announced the Four Box Model, which allowed HP to assess
supplies revenue based on four factors: installed base, usage,
printer supplies market share or supplies attach, and price of
supplies.  According to HP, the Four Box Model used various forms
of data and analytics to accurately predict supplies revenue.
During the class period, between Feb. 23, 2017 and Oct. 3, 2019, HP
told investors that the Four Box Model predicted HP's supplies
revenue would stabilize.  However, on Feb. 27, 2019, HP's CEO,
Defendant Dion J. Weisler, admitted that HP lacked statistically
sufficient, accurate, and otherwise reliable telemetry data from
HP's toner-based printer, meaning that the Four Box Model could not
accurately predict supplies stabilization.

On Feb. 19, 2020, the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General
Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode
Island and Iron Workers Local 580 ("Plaintiffs") filed the
securities class action lawsuit against HP.  On July 20, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint ("AC"), bringing suit against
HP; Weisler, President and CEO of HP from November 2015 to November
2019; Catherine A. Lesjak, CFO from November 2015 to July 2018,
interim COO from July 2018 to February 2019; Steven J. Fieler, CFO
since July 2018; Enrique Lores, President of Imaging, Printing and
Solutions; and Christoph Schell, Chief Commercial Officer since
November 2019.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  They allege the Defendants made false
and misleading statements by failing to disclose the Four Box
Model's lack of "reliable telemetry data from HP's toner-based
printers and, instead, unbeknownst to investors, utilized
inaccurate, stale, and lagging third-party survey data."  They also
allege violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a), against Individual Defendants for their roles as
controlling persons of HP and one another during the class period.
Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that individual defendants violated
Section 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder for insider trading based on violations of the Exchange
Act and contemporaneous insider trading of HP common stock.

On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's amended complaint.  On Dec. 11, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  The Defendants filed a reply on
Jan. 20, 2021.

On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendants filed a request for judicial
notice.  On Dec. 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the Defendants' request for judicial notice and submitted their own
request for judicial notice.  On Jan. 20, 2021, the Defendants
filed a reply in support of their request for judicial notice and
an opposition to the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice.

Requests for Judicial Notice and Incorporation-by-Reference

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants requested judicial notice or
incorporation-by-reference of various documents, including SEC
filings, transcripts of meetings, and an Order Instituting
Cease-And-Desist from the SEC.  Both parties argue that the facts
contained within each of the opposing party's documents are subject
to reasonable dispute.

Without ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits, Judge Illston
grants the Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' requests for judicial
notice and takes notice of the existence of the parties' exhibits.
She does not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents that
are subject to reasonable dispute.

Exchange Act Claims

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim
for failure to adequately plead actionable misstatements and
scienter, Section 20(a) claim for failure to plead an independent
violation of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A claim for failure to
plead an independent violation of the Exchange Act and
contemporaneous trading.

Among other things, Judge Illston finds that (i) the AC fails to
adequately plead with particularity why the Defendants' statements
about "big data" are misleading; (ii) the core operations theory
does not establish a strong inference of scienter; (iii) the
Defendants' statements of general access to the Four Box Model do
not establish that they personally monitored the system telemetry
or had access to all data within the system; (iv) the seven-week
gap between the Defendants' last alleged misstatement and the
alleged February 2019 statement is insufficient to establish
scienter; and (v) the AC fails to adequately plead that the
Defendants had actual knowledge of falsity at the time defendants
made the alleged misstatements during the class period.  She grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act because the AC failed to
adequately plead a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The Plaintiffs argue the AC adequately plead a
primary violation of Section 10(b).

For the reasons she stated above, Judge Illston finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a violation of 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.  She grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section
20A of the Exchange Act.  The Plaintiffs argue the AC establishes
contemporaneous trading by pleading that they purchased HP shares
on the same day as one of Defendant Lores' trades and within nine
days of Defendant Weisler's trades.

Section 20A of the Exchange Act requires the Plaintiffs to
establish (1) an independent violation of another provision of the
securities laws, (2) the Defendants traded while in the possession
of material, nonpublic information, and (3) contemporaneous trading
activity between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

Judge Illston finds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
a violation of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The AC also
adequately pleads contemporaneous trading.  The AC adequately
pleads two contemporaneous trades: (1) Defendant Weisler's sale of
stock on November 6, 2017 and Lead Plaintiff Iron Worker's
subsequent purchase on Nov. 15, 2017 and (2) Defendant Lores' sale
on March 9, 2018 and Iron Workers' purchase on the same day.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and grants the Plaintiffs
leave to amend.  She also grants the Defendants' request for
judicial notice and the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice.
Any amended complaint must be filed no later than April 9, 2021.
The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for March 28,
2021 is continued to May 7, 2021, at 3:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/s76u8b34 from Leagle.com.


HUMAN BEES: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Bees, Inc. The
case is styled as Diana Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all person similarly situated v. Human
Bees, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002678 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
25, 2021).

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

Human Bees -- https://humanbees.com/ -- provides recruiting and
temporary workforce solutions to secure time critical staff
augmentation demands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Fax: (858) 551-1232
          Phone: (858) 551-1223
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


HURRICANE GROUP: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hurricane Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Hurricane Group, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02567 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Hurricane Group, Inc. (Formerly Force 12 Media) --
https://hurricane.media/ -- began as an online military news and
entertainment outlet founded in 2012 and has organically grown to a
multi-channel digital network.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYPER STRUCTURE: Underpays Construction Workers, Castro et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CASTRO and MARIO DEL VALLE MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. HYPER
STRUCTURE CORP. d/b/a HYPER STRUCTURE, SAHEL KHAN, CHARLES TOLIVER,
and MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01391 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 16, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work at the
Defendants' construction site located at 138-28 Queens Boulevard,
Jamaica, New York 11435 – Plaintiff Castro as a flag person from
in or around February 2019 until in or around December 2019, and
Plaintiff Martinez as a foreman from in or around October 2019
until in or around March 2020.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants employed a time-shaving
policy by requiring their workers off-the-clock without
compensating them. Despite working over 40 per week and 10 hours
every workday throughout their employment with the Defendants, the
Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 per week, and their spread of
hours premium for workdays that exceeded 10 hours in length.
Instead, the Defendant paid them a fixed salary regardless of how
many hours they work each workweek, the Plaintiffs add.

Allegedly, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated construction workers in cash, but failed to provide them
with proper wage statements, and with accurate withholding tax
statements for each tax year during which they worked because the
Defendants did not withhold any of their wages for tax purposes.

Hyper Structure Corp. operates a construction firm. Sahel Khan and
Charles Toliver are principals of the Corporate Defendant and
exercise operation control over their employees. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


INFINITY Q: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of shares of the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
(NASDAQ:IQDAX)(NASDAQ:IQDNX) between December 21, 2018 through
February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important
April 27, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action lawsuit first filed by the firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Diversified Alpha Fund 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 Diversified Alpha Fund class action,
go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2045.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 27, 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 4 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) Infinity Q's Chief Investment
Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the
third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps
held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to
calculate net asset value ("NAV") correctly; (3) as a result, the
previously reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the
foregoing, the Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its
assets; and (5) as a result, the Prospectuses were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Diversified Alpha Fund class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2045.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

INSPIRE UPLIFT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspire Uplift LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Inspire Uplift LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02575-PAE-RWL (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Inspire Uplift -- https://www.inspireuplift.com/ -- offers home
improvement products to beauty and health gear, clothing and
electronics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Facing GameStop-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Interactive
Brokers LLC is facing more than three dozens of federal class
action lawsuits related to the improper restriction in trading the
shares of and options on GameStop Corp.

Since late January 2021, more than three dozen federal class action
lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions against various
brokers and other market participants claiming that the defendants
acted improperly in restricting trading in the shares of and
options on GameStop Corp. and other companies that were subject to
unusual trading in January 2021 in what has been referred to as the
"Reddit-related short-squeeze".

Most of these cases assert federal antitrust claims, including
alleging an illegal antitrust conspiracy among the defendants, and
various state law claims.

Interactive Brokers LLC (IB LLC) and its affiliates have been named
as defendants in seven of these class action lawsuits. On February
4, 2021, plaintiffs in one of the class actions filed a motion with
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer
all existing short-squeeze related class actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California for
coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

The time for IB LLC and its affiliates to respond to the
allegations will likely be stayed during the pendency of the JPML
proceedings.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against IB LLC and
its affiliates lack merit on their face and the Company intends to
file, at the appropriate time, a motion to dismiss any class action
that might name IB LLC and its affiliates as defendants.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff Bid for Class Status Due August 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is due on August 16, 2021.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among
other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017,
plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30,
2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9,
2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court
certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of
Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The
Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020.

Currently, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on
August 16, 2021. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the
Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account.

IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past
practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any
potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.

IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit filed in the Northern District
of California,

On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the Company and its former chief executive
officer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired
our securities between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the
class.

The Company believes the complaint to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining our wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.


JHW SERVICES: Underpays Safety Managers, Girling Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN GIRLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JHW SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00271 (W.D. Tex., March 16, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant to recover regular and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from July 2019 through
March 2021 as an hourly-paid safety manager.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him
for all hours he worked. Specifically, the Defendant did not count
the time spent by the Plaintiff traveling during the workday as
hours worked. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per
week from June 2020 through March 2021, the Defendant automatically
rounded off his hours worked into 40 per week, thereby failing to
pay him his lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over
40 in a workweek, added the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court finds proper.

JHW Services, LLC provides electrical, instrumentation, and
automation oil-field services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles A. Sturm, Esq.
          STURM LAW, PLLC
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 955-1800
          Fax: (713) 955-1078
          E-mail: csturm@sturmlegal.com


JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 230, JOHNSON COUNTY, STATE OF KANSAS,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN,
NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC.,
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02099 (N.D.
Cal., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence and violations of the Kansas Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants allegedly developed and implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with
kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were
safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by
placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media
and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a
teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more
young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit contends.

Unified School District No. 230 is a school district located at 101
East South Street in Spring Hill, Kansas.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
         METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS)
Class Period: 5/4/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-leidos-holdings-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                         About ClaimsFiler

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

LIBERTY BROADBAND: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Hollywood
Firefighters' Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2020-0880.

On October 9, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by
two purported GCI Liberty stockholders in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware under the caption Hollywood Firefighters'
Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al., Case No.
2020-0880. A new version of the complaint was filed on October 11,
2020.

The complaint named as defendants GCI Liberty, as well as the
members of the GCI Liberty board of directors. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that Mr. Gregory B. Maffei, a director
and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Broadband
and, prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, and Mr. John C. Malone,
the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Liberty Broadband and,
prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, in their purported
capacities as controlling stockholders and directors of GCI
Liberty, and the other directors of GCI Liberty, breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Combination.

The lawsuit further alleged that the Combination violated Section
203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
("DGCL") and that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus that was
filed in connection with the Combination misstated and omitted
material information.

The complaint also alleged that various prior and current
relationships among members of the GCI Liberty special committee,
Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei rendered the members of the GCI Liberty
special committee not independent.

The complaint sought certification of a class action, declarations
that Messrs. Maffei and Malone and the other directors of GCI
Liberty breached their fiduciary duties and that the Combination
violates Section 203 of the DGCL, an injunction barring the
stockholder vote and the Combination, and the recovery of damages
and other relief.

On October 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On October 27, 2020, after a hearing, the Court
granted the motion. On November 6, 2020, the Court entered an order
setting a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction for December 7, 2020.

On November 21, 2020, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a
stipulation and proposed order describing an agreement reached
among them, including plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss their claim
that the Combination violates Section 203 of the DGCL as moot and
to withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction in return for
certain agreements by Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei described in our
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 24, 2020. The Court
granted the Agreed Stipulation and Order and canceled the hearing
on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint does not include claims
against GCI Liberty or Ms. Sue Ann Hamilton, a former member of the
GCI Liberty special committee. The Second Amended Complaint also
does not assert Plaintiffs' prior claims regarding violations of
Section 203 of the DGCL or seek an injunction barring the
stockholder vote or the Combination.

The Second Amended Complaint includes a new count of breach of
fiduciary duty against Mr. Maffei and Mr. Gregg Engles, the other
former member of the GCI Liberty special committee, for purportedly
failing to inform the GCI board of former and current social and
professional relationships between Mr. Maffei, Mr. Engles and Mr.
Anthony Magro, an employee of Evercore, financial advisor to the
GCI Liberty special committee.

The Second Amended Complaint also contains new allegations that the
price of GCI Liberty was depressed as a result of statements and
omissions by Mr. Maffei in November of 2019.

The parties are conducting discovery. Trial in the matter is
scheduled for November 2021.

Liberty Broadband believes this lawsuit is without merit.

Englewood, Colorado-based Liberty Broadband Corporation a cable
operator, provides video, Internet, and voice services to
residential and commercial customers in the United States. It
operates through Skyhook and Charter segments. The Skyhook segment
offers a Wi-Fi-based location platform that provides positioning
technology and contextual location intelligence solutions. The
Charter segment offers subscription-based video services, including
video on demand, high definition television, digital video
recorder, and digital set-top box services; and voice services,
such as local and long distance calling, voicemail, call waiting,
caller ID, call forwarding, and other services, as well as
international calling services.

LIBERTY MEDIA: 9th Cir. Stays Flo & Eddie Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Ninth Circuit
issued an order granting the stay of appellate proceedings pending
the resolution of a related case against Sirius XM.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the federal district court
for the Central District of California.  

The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings").

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took
steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making
the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of
pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in
the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth
Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the
question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims
challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends
on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2020, the District Court denied Pandora's renewed motion
to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding
the case no longer qualified for anti-SLAPP due to intervening
changes in the law, and denied Pandora's renewed attempt to end the
case.  

Alternatively, the District Court ruled that the preemption defense
likely did not apply to Flo & Eddie's claims, in part because the
District Court believed that the Music Modernization Act did not
apply retroactively.  

Pandora promptly appealed the District Court's decision to the
Ninth Circuit and moved to stay appellate briefing pending the
appeal of a related case against Sirius XM.  

On January 13, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the
stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related
case against Sirius XM.

Sirius XM Holdings believes it has substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in these actions, and it intends to defend these
actions vigorously.

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado.

LIFESPIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckles Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL D. BECKLES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESPIRE, INC.; THOMAS LYDON; and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02447 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 19, 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 Beckles was employed by the Defendants as health aide.

Lifespire Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The
Organization provides residential services, day rehabilitation,
pre-vocational training, and supported employment to disabilities
and their families. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


LLOYD JONES: Ramirez Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Maintenance Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR M. RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LLOYD JONES LLC and CHRISTOPHER C.
FINLAY, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60639-AHS (S.D. Fla., March
23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance employee
at Shamrock of Sunrise Apartments, a senior living community,
located at 4001 N. Pine Island Rd., Sunrise, Florida from January
1, 2019 to March 17, 2021.

Lloyd Jones LLC is a real estate investment, development, property
management, and senior housing management company based in Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LOMPOC, CA: Trial Date Approved in Prison COVID-19 Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo News reports that a tentative trial date has been set for
August in a federal class-action lawsuit accusing Bureau of Prisons
officials of cruel and unusual punishment over their response to a
COVID-19 outbreak at the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex last
year.

Once known as a place for doing easy time, the complex lost that
reputation after it converted to a more security facility in the
early 1990s, according to the Los Angeles Times, and later became
the location of one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the
federal system at the time, infecting more than 1,000 inmates. Five
inmates at the facility also died as a result of the virus in
2020.

As a result, five inmates - Yonnedil Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix
Garcia, Andre Brown and Shawn Fears - filed a class-action lawsuit
on May 16, 2020, in U.S. District Court.

In the lawsuit, they accuse the Bureau of Prisons of an
"ineffective" and "unacceptable" response to the outbreak, which
included a lack of testing and personal protective equipment, in
addition to isolating inmates who tested positive for the
coronavirus in solitary confinement for several consecutive days
without medical care.

The five inmates also are seeking home confinement, claiming the
Bureau of Prisons has not done enough curb the spread of the
coronavirus.

Bureau of Prisons officials did not respond to several emails
seeking comment.

In a ruling in July 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo B.
Marshall issued a preliminary injunction that ordered officials to
begin the process of identifying at-risk inmates for release to
home confinement as a safety measure.

After 10 months, the plaintiffs are asking the judge to enforce the
injunction for a second time based on the low number and slow rate
of inmates released to home confinement. Marshall set a tentative
trial date of Aug. 24, with pretrial conferences to begin in July.

Some inmates released on home confinement, others vaccinated

At least 44 of the facility's inmates have been released to home
confinement since July 2020, although 129 were approved for
release, according to Naeun Rim, one of the plaintiff's attorneys.

Additionally, 81 received compassionate release and about 100 were
transferred to halfway houses.

Plaintiffs have accused prison officials of dragging their feet in
releasing inmates, although the Bureau of Prisons contends the
preliminary injunction doesn't actually require the prison to
release inmates immediately, according to a Sept. 15, 2020,
filing.

In December, both parties entered mediation to discuss the Bureau
of Prisons' alleged noncompliance with the injunction, days before
the first round of vaccines arrived at the prison.

As of February, more than 240 inmates have been vaccinated against
COVID-19, while 151 inmates have refused the vaccine, according to
Jason Christopher, a Lompoc FCC paramedic, who added that at least
441 were offered the vaccine.

In a ruling that now is included in the Lompoc case, a federal
judge in Connecticut recently denied release for inmates who have
either received or were offered the vaccine.

Bureau of Prisons officials have indicated their intention to ask a
judge to make a final ruling on the case, citing their own
vaccination and containment efforts.

"Evidence that a defendant has been offered the vaccine, whether he
accepts it or not, demonstrates that he had the ability and
opportunity to take measures to markedly reduce his risk of severe
illness or death from COVID-19 while incarcerated," read the March
10 ruling.

The plaintiffs have been ordered to return to court on March 26 to
submit data showing that the Bureau of Prisons officials imposed
barriers on their home confinement, according to court records.

Epidemiologist to return for second inspection at facility

Dr. Homer Venters, an epidemiologist, will return to the Lompoc
Federal Correctional Complex no later than April 21.

In his first visit, Venters was sent to document the outbreak's
response at the FCI, finding that inmates lacked timely access to
medical care.

Marshall authorized the second visit in order to follow up on his
first report, despite objections by the Bureau of Prisons,
according to court records.

"When specifically asked about his latest assignments, Venters did
not disclose that he had been retained to give opinions against the
federal government," U.S. Attorney Jasmin Yang said in a March 21
filing, also accusing him of "scientific dishonesty." [GN]

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) investors
to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Aug. 3, 2020 - Mar. 17, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/RIDE
Contact an Attorney Now: RIDE@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

RIDE Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges defendants misled investors by (i) falsely
touting customer pre-orders when they were non-binding agreements,
(ii) concealing that many would-be customers lacked the means to
make such purchases, (iii) misstating that Lordstown was "on track"
to commence production of the Endurance in Sept. 2021, and (iv)
omitting to disclose that the first Endurance test run resulted in
the vehicle quickly bursting into flames.

Investors began to learn the truth on Mar. 12, 2021, when
Hindenburg Research published a report, claiming that the 100,000
pre-orders for Lordstown's EV truck are "largely fictitious and
used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy." Hindenburg
also cited significant, undisclosed production delays and a
prototype that "burst into flames 10 minutes before the test drive"
in Jan. 2021, substantiating claims by former employees that the
company is not conducting the needed testing or validation required
by the NHTSA. On this news, Lordstown shares fell by 17% in one
trading day.

Before the markets opened on Mar. 18, 2021, Lordstown's CEO,
Stephen Burns, appeared on CNBC stating, "We never said we had
orders. We don't have a product yet so by definition you can't have
orders." Lordstown shares fell approximately another 9% on this
news.

More recently, on Mar. 24, Hindenburg hit again, publishing photos
of a broken down Endurance on a tow truck during a commercial shoot
last summer. The commercial aired several days before Lordstown
Motors announced its merger with SPAC DiamondPeak.

Then, on Mar. 25, 2021, Lordstown filed its annual report
disclosing that the SEC has instructed the company to turn over
documents relating to the SPAC merger and pre-orders of its
vehicles.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Lordstown duped
investors about its order book," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Lordstown 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
Lordstown Motors 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 RIDE@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

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

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

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Lordstown Motors Corp. (RIDE)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 3/17/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ride/

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 KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF 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]

LYONS DOUGHTY: Seo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons, Doughty &
Veldhuis P.C. The case is styled as Ji Seo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis
P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-06763-JMV-MF (D.N.J., March 25, 2021).

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

Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis P.C. -- https://ldvlaw.com/ -- is located
in Mount Laurel, New Jersey and is part of the Legal Services
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Phone: (201) 507-6300
          Email: lh@hershlegal.com


M & J TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & J Trimming
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. M & J Trimming
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02609 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

M&J Trimming -- https://www.mjtrim.com/ -- carries rhinestones,
ribbons, buttons, fabric trims, Swarovski crystals, supplies and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTERCARD INC: Court Will Decide if Class Action Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
pymnts.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against Mastercard
for a record 14 billion pounds ($19 billion) will be heard by a
specialist London court on March 25, which will decide if the case
should proceed, Reuters reported.

The 2016 suit, brought by former financial ombudsman Walter
Merricks, could entitle every adult in Britain to about £300
pounds each. Merricks accused Mastercard of overcharging over 46
million people across nearly 16 years.

The case goes before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for a
two-day hearing after the U.K. Supreme Court last year overruled
objections to it moving forward. This is Britain's first-ever mass
consumer claim, and the outcome could set the stage for other such
lawsuits on deck.

Quinn Emanuel, the U.S. law firm advising Merricks, accused
Mastercard of overcharging retailers for credit card fees from May
1992 through June 2008. The allegations further state that those
fees were then passed on to consumers via increased prices for
merchandise, Reuters reported.

Some of the arguments expected to be heard this concern the estates
of those deceased, and whether compound interest should accrue. The
case comes more than a dozen years after the European Commission
ruled that Mastercard had charged unlawful cross-border interchange
fees across the period indicated.

Mastercard maintains that the case has no merit and that many
people reaped benefits from the company's payments technology.

If allowed to move ahead, Merricks will likely have to prove that
Mastercard's domestic fees were illegal and what that actually
ended up costing consumers.

The class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of 46 million
consumers and is the first major lawsuit to proceed under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, which penalizes anti-competitive
behavior. Mastercard and Visa lost a lawsuit in June 2020 over
swipe fees. The U.K. high court upheld a 2018 ruling that charged
both companies with suppressing retail competition with
multilateral interchange fees (MIF).[GN]

MASTERCARD INC: Resists Compound Interest on $19BB UK Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley at Reuters reports that Mastercard Inc pushed back
against attempts to add compound interest to a 14 billion-pound
($19.2 billion) British consumer class action during a specialist
court hearing to certify and agree the scope of the historic case.

On the first day of a two-day hearing at the Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT), a Mastercard lawyer said that common law did not
assume that interest would accrue on a compound basis on such
claims.

"The law is not the same as economic theory," he said.

"In most cases, simple interest is going to be perfectly adequate
as a means of compensation."

Former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, who is leading the
claim, alleges that Mastercard overcharged almost 60 million people
in Britain - including about 14 million people now deceased - over
nearly 16 years. The case could entitle adults and their estates to
roughly 300 pounds each if successful.

Mastercard will lay out its arguments about why claims from the
deceased should be excluded, after which the CAT has to decide
whether to certify Britain's first mass consumer claim as a
collective action - and clarify the rules for a string of other
class actions stalled in its wake.

The UK Supreme Court paved the way for the case to proceed after
overruling objections in December.

Merricks, who is being advised by law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleges
Mastercard charged excessive "interchange" fees - the fees
retailers pay credit card companies when consumers use a card to
shop - between May 1992 and June 2008 and that those fees were
passed on to consumers as retailers raised prices.

Mastercard says it "fundamentally disagrees" with the claim, that
people received valuable benefits from its payments technology and
that the lawsuit is driven by U.S. lawyers and backed by
organisations focused on making money for themselves.

The case was filed in 2016, one year after the CAT was nominated to
oversee Britain's U.S.-style "opt-out" class action regime for
breaches of UK or EU competition law - and 12 years after the
European Commission ruled that Mastercard had charged unlawful
cross-border interchange fees over the period. [GN]

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Georgia Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEACH COUNTY, GEORGIA and the CITY OF WOODBURY, GEORGIA,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY &
COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON
D.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00043-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 23,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
fraud and misrepresentation, public nuisance, civil conspiracy,
wanton-intentional conduct, deceptive trade practices, and false
statement in advertising.

The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in
creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Georgia. The Defendants
knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the misconduct of opioid
manufacturer Purdue Pharma, but nonetheless advised Purdue to
improperly market and sell OxyContin, a brand-name opioid. The
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages from the Defendants
and to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by
the opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to
recoup monies that has been spent, or will be spent, because of the
Defendants' conduct in fueling the epidemic.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 1200 19th
Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Andrew J. Conn, Esq.
         HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP
         1418 Dresden Drive NE, Unit 250
         Brookhaven, GA 30319
         Telephone: (404) 961-7650
         Facsimile: (404) 961-7651
         E-mail: aconn@hlmlawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Jeff Friedman, Esq.
         Matt Conn, Esq.
         Rodney Dillard, II, Esq.
         FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO & ZULANAS, P.C.
         3800 Corporate Woods Drive
         Birmingham, AL 35242
         E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                 mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
                 rdillard@friedman-lawyers.com

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Tenn. Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE and THE CITY OF MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY &
COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON
DC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00105 (E.D. Tenn., March 24, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, fraud and
misrepresentation, common law public nuisance, statutory public
nuisance, civil conspiracy, wanton-intentional conduct, and
deceptive trade practices.

The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in
creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Tennessee. The
Defendants allegedly knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the
misconduct of opioid manufacturers such as Purdue Pharma, but
nonetheless advised Purdue to improperly market and sell OxyContin,
a brand-name opioid. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover
damages from the Defendants and to eliminate the hazard to public
health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the
nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that has been spent,
or will be spent, because of the Defendants' conduct in fueling the
epidemic.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 1200 19th
Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Joseph L. Kerr, Jr., Esq.
         Jeff Friedman, Esq.
         Matt Conn, Esq.
         FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO & ZULANAS, P.C.
         3800 Corporate Woods Drive
         Birmingham, AL 35242
         Telephone: (205) 278-7000
         E-mail: jkerr@friedman-lawyers.com
                 jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                 mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

                 - and –

         Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq.
         KRAMER RAYSON LLP
         Post Office Box 629
         Knoxville, TN 37901-0629
         Telephone: (865) 525-5134
         E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com

                 - and –

         Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
         Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
         Teris N. Swanson, Esq.
         BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
         601 Washington Street
         Paducah, KY 42003
         Telephone: (270) 442-1422
         E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                 emily@bryant.law
                 teris@bryant.law

                 - and –

         David G. Bryant, Esq.
         DAVID BRYANT LAW, PLLC
         600 West Main Street, Suite 100
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Telephone: (502) 540-1221
         E-mail: david@davidbryantlaw.com

MDL 2921: Court Narrows Claims in Allergan BIOCELL Implants Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-md-2921-BRM-ESK, MDL
No. 2921 (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey enters Opinion granting in
part and denying in part the following motions filed by Defendants
Allergan, Inc., and Allergan USA, Inc.:

   a. Motion to Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class
      Action Complaint ("CAC") and every other class action
      complaint filed in a lawsuit that is part of the Multi
      District Litigation ("MDL") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      12(b)(6) and 12(f);

   b. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints on preemption
      grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and

   c. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Master Long Form Personal
      Injury Complaint ("PIC") on non-preemption grounds and
      every other complaint filed in a lawsuit that is part of
      the MDL and alleges personal injury damages pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs and class members are patients who had Allergan's
BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders implanted
into their bodies.  Many of the Plaintiffs are breast cancer
survivors or women having undergone prophylactic mastectomies, who
were implanted with the BIOCELL implants in reconstructive
surgery.

The Plaintiffs allege the BIOCELL implants cause Breast-Implant
Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"), a cancer of
the immune system that develops in the area around an implant,
often between the implant and the surrounding scar tissue.
BIA-ALCL frequently presents as a late-onset seroma in the breast,
which is an accumulation of fluid between the capsule and the
implant, resulting in swelling of the breast.  Left untreated,
BIA-ALCL can spread through the body and be fatal.  Some of the
Plaintiffs have been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, others have had their
implants removed, and others still have BIOCELL implants in their
bodies.

The case involves dozens of recalled models of the BIOCELL
implants.  Many models were sold pursuant to three pre-market
approvals ("PMAs") that Allergan received from the United States
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on May 20, 2000, on Nov. 17,
2006, and on Feb. 20, 2013.  The Plaintiffs allege these PMAs
contained Conditions of Approval, requiring Allergan to (among
other things) conduct studies of the devices' safety, report
adverse events to the FDA, and revise the labeling to add warnings
when necessitated by new safety information.  Other models,
including the BIOCELL tissue expanders, were approved through the
much less rigorous Section 510(k) process.  Still others were
approved for use in investigative studies under the Investigational
Device Exemption ("IDE").

For over 20 years, Allergan and its predecessor companies marketed
and sold the BIOCELL Implants.   Allergan recalled the BIOCELL
implants in July 2019 after the FDA found they posed a heightened
risk of BIA-ALCL.  The Plaintiffs claim Allergan's textured
implants increase the risk of BIA-ALCL by 3,000 times.  The FDA has
concluded "the risk of BIA-ALCL with Allergan BIOCELL textured
implants is approximately six times the risk of BIA-ALCL with
textured implants from other manufacturers."  According to the FDA,
246,831 BIOCELL Implants have been recalled in the United States.

On July 29, 2019, the FDA issued a Class I Recall notice.
According to the FDA, the continued distribution of the BIOCELL
Implants "would likely cause serious, adverse health consequences
and potentially death from BIA-ALCL."  Allergan refuses to pay the
implants' users for the cost of explant surgeries to remove the
implants or for ongoing monitoring and testing for BIA-ALCL.

The litigation began as a series of actions filed in judicial
districts throughout the country.  By Order dated Dec. 18, 2019,
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred several of those matters to the District of New Jersey,
thereby creating MDL No. 2921.  The Panel has continued to transfer
cases since that time, and the Plaintiffs have directly filed
others, such that the MDL currently consists of more than 562
member cases.

On May 26, 2020, Liaison Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel filed the PIC.  The complaint asserts: claims
for manufacturing defect, based on strict liability (Count I) and
negligence (Count II); claims for failure to warn, based on strict
liability (Count IV) and negligence (Count V); claims for general
negligence (Count III) and breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability (Count VII), primarily based on the aforementioned
defects; claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count VI) and
breach of express warranty (Count VIII), based on false
representations and warranties Allergan allegedly made regarding
the safety of the BIOCELL implants.  The complaint also asserts a
claim for survivorship and wrongful death on behalf of
representatives of decedents who died after being implanted with
the BIOCELL implants (Count XI), loss of consortium on behalf of
the spouses of those implanted with the BIOCELL implants (Count
XII), and punitive damages (Count XIII).

On May 26, 2020, certain Plaintiffs filed the CAC. (ECF No. 118.)
In addition to certain claims also asserted in the PIC (strict
liability and negligent failure to warn, strict liability and
negligent manufacturing defect, strict liability and negligent
design defect (for non-PMA devices), and breach of implied warranty
of merchantability), the CAC asserts claims for medical monitoring
(Counts 300-05), violations of state consumer fraud and deceptive
trade practices acts (Counts 330-82), unjust enrichment (Counts
383-436), declaratory judgment declaring that releases signed by
certain class members are unenforceable (Counts 437-38), and
rescission of those releases (Count 439). The CAC also seeks
equitable relief in the form of a court-ordered medical monitoring
program funded by Allergan.

On Aug. 7, 2020, Allergan filed a Motion to Strike/Dismiss
Plaintiffs' CAC and every other class action complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaints on preemption grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) (ECF No. 171-1), and a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' PIC
and every other complaint on non-preemption grounds pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiffs filed
oppositions to Allergan's Motions to Dismiss.

On Dec. 14, 2020, the Court held oral argument on the motions and
permitted simultaneous supplemental briefing.

Allergan's Motion to Dismiss on Preemption Grounds

Allergan argues the Plaintiffs' claims trigger express and implied
preemption and are mostly foreclosed by the Medical Device
Amendments ("MDA").  The Plaintiffs counter that their claims
regarding Allergan's violations of its duties under state law
parallel federal requirements and therefore are not preempted.

Judge Martinotti concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations of
Allergan's violations of state law duties, if in parallel with
federal requirements and not amounting to a private enforcement of
the FDCA, are not preempted.  He finds that the following
Plaintiffs' claims are preempted and therefore dismissed: (1)
label-based failure to warn claims; (2) claims challenging the
safety or effectiveness of Allergan's investigational devices used
in an approved clinical trial; and (3) negligent failure to warn
claims based on Allergan's alleged failure to conduct post-PMA
clinical studies.  These preemptions, however, do not apply to the
Plaintiffs' claims concerning Allergan's tissue expanders and
implants sold before the 2000 PMA.

Both parties agree the Plaintiffs' claims concerning Allergan's
tissue expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA are not
preempted.  Indeed, Allergan's tissue expanders and pre-PMA
implants were sold through the 510(k) process.

Allergan's Motion to Dismiss on Non-Preemption Grounds

Allergan argues the Plaintiffs raise novel state law personal
injury claims that have not been authorized by a state statute or
adopted by any state's highest court, and the Court should not
recognize such claims under the Erie doctrine.  It maintains, when
confronted with open questions of state law liability, federal
courts in this Circuit must opt for the interpretation that
restricts liability, rather than expands it, until the state's
highest court decides differently.  However, Allergan concedes the
Court need not rely solely on the decisions of a state's highest
court in interpreting state laws.

The Plaintiffs contend the Erie doctrine does not mandate the
dismissal of all the state claims not recognized by that state's
highest court.  Instead, they assert, if the state's highest court
has not spoken, district courts sitting in diversity must predict
what the state's highest court would decide.

Judge Martinotti dismisses: (1) FDCA/CGMP-based negligence per se
claims under the laws of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; (2) report-based failure to
warn claims under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona,
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming; (3)
negligence misrepresentation claims under the laws of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, and Virginia, as well as common law
negligence misrepresentation claims under Mississippi law; and (4)
the following warranty claims: Implied warranty of merchantability
claims under Pennsylvania law and warranty claims under Wisconsin
law.

Among other things, the Judge opines that (i) the question of
whether present injuries exist is a factual issue specific to each
individual Plaintiff, and should not be scrutinized at this stage;
(ii) the Plaintiffs cannot assert an FDCA/CGMP-based negligence per
se claim in some jurisdictions; (iii) the Plaintiffs may assert
express warranty claims and UCC-based implied warranty of
merchantability claims; and (iv) the Plaintiffs' claims are not
viable under Wisconsin law.

Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Allegations

Allergan challenges the Plaintiffs' class allegations asserted for
the following three classes, purportedly nationwide in scope: "A
medical monitoring class comprised of all persons who were
implanted with Allergan's textured breast implant devices, but have
not yet been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL; 112 separate subclasses--two
for every U.S. State and Territory--consisting of the exact same
putative members as the nationwide class; and A release subclass
comprised of persons who signed an optional release of liability as
part of their individual warranty claims leading to the explant of
their breast implant devices."

The Plaintiffs argue Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss the CAC is
premature and a rare remedy: Because the issue of whether the
Plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23 is a fact-intensive question, class
certification decisions should be made following discovery.

Judge Martinotti dismisses the Plaintiffs' class allegations
asserted for (1) the following subclasses: Alaska, American Samoa,
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas,
Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Vermont; and (2) a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) medical monitoring
class.

Among other things, the Judge holds that (i) the named Plaintiffs
do not have the standing as class representatives to assert claims
for the state-specific subclasses of which they are not members;
(ii) the claims asserted by the named Plaintiffs and putative class
members stem from the same course of conducts of Allergan; (iii) a
predominance and superiority inquiry is premature at this stage;
and (iv) a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class action for medical
monitoring will not provide any relief to some Plaintiffs.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti grants in part and
denies in part Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss CAC, Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints on preemption grounds, and Motion to
Dismiss PIC as follows:

      a. The Judge dismisses with prejudice all the Plaintiffs'
claims to the extent they are based on the alleged defects in
Allergan's investigational devices used in an approved clinical
trial, other than Allergan's tissue expanders and implants sold
before the 2000 PMA.

      b. The Judge dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims
for: negligence per se (Count III) to the extent the claims are
asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; strict liability (Count IV)
and negligent failure to warn (Count V) to the extent they are
based on Allergan's alleged failure to (1) warn on its label the
risk of developing BIA-ALCL and (2) conduct post-PMA clinical
studies, for the BIOCELL implants, other than Allergan's tissue
expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA; strict liability
(Count IV) and negligent failure to warn (Count V) to the extent
they are based on Allergan's alleged failure to adequately report
safety information to the FDA under the laws of Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wyoming; negligent representation (Count VI) the extent they are
asserted under the laws of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, and
Virginia, as well as Mississippi common law; implied warranty of
merchantability (Count VII) to the extent they are asserted under
Pennsylvania law and Wisconsin law; and express warranty (Count
VIII) to the extent they are asserted under Wisconsin law.

      c. The Judge strikes/dismisses without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' class allegations for (1) the a nationwide Rule
23(b)(2) medical monitoring class; and (2) the PMA and non-PMA
Device State Subclasses the extent of the subclasses for Alaska,
American Samoa, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii,
Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Vermont.

      d. The Judge denies the motions to dismiss as to the
remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3424v2m6 from Leagle.com.


MEISNER'S GOURMET: Palacios et al. Seek Proper OT and Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO PALACIOS, and MARLON REYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. MEISNER'S GOURMET CATERING, INC.,
MEISNER'S DEMANDED KOSHER PREPARED FOODS INC., and SOLOMON MEISNER
and JOSEPH MEISNER, as individuals, Case No. 2:21-cv-01155
(E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2021), seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of the overtime wage and minimum
wage laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

As a result of the Defendants' violations of federal and New York
State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The
Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.

Meisner's Gourmet offers catering services and event planning for
all occasions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Underpays Production Employees, Solis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE HERNANDEZ SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00459 (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2021), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
production employee from approximately April 2020 to June 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that although the Defendants paid him
overtime pay for work in excess of 8 hours per workday and in
excess of 40 hours of work in the workweek, the Defendant underpaid
his overtime because it failed to pay him at the correct rate of
pay. In addition, the Defendants failed to compensate him and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees for the time they spent
undergoing off-the-clock Covid-19 temperature checks at the
beginning of the workday, and failed to compensate them for the
rest periods they did not take because the Defendant did not
authorize them. Consequently, the Defendants failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements as a result of its failure to pay
all minimum and overtime wages, including rest period premiums, the
suit says.

Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to timely pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees for
their lawfully earned wages upon separation from employment, added
the suit.

Thus, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the
Classes, the Plaintiff seeks full restitution of monies, as
necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies
withheld, as well as pre-judgment interest on all due and unpaid
wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. provides variety of sports products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Joseph R. Holmes, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  jholmes@haineslawgroup.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies McGinnis' Bid to Strike Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHLEEN S. McGINNIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05370-JDW (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joshua D.
Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Offer.

Ms. McGinnis filed the putative class action complaint on Oct. 27,
2020.  The Defendant sent the Plaintiff an offer of judgment on
Jan. 26, 2021, for $1,001.  The offer of judgment created a
dilemma: Accept the offer and abandon the putative class or press
on.  Ms. McGinnis pressed on, so the offer expired.

The Plaintiff then filed the Motion to Strike on Feb. 8, 2021.  She
wants the Court to strike it because she says it created an unfair
dilemma for her.  The offer expired on Feb. 9, 2021.

Judge Wolson first addresses the procedural basis for Ms.
McGinnis's motion.  She captions her motion as a "Motion to
Strike," and those semantics create some confusion, both in the
case and others.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides
for motions to strike certain material from a pleading.  That rule
applies only to certain types of pleadings, not including an offer
of judgment.  As a result, Midland Funding argues that the Motion
is improper.

Ultimately, Midland Funding's argument is one of semantics.  If Ms.
McGinnis had captioned her motion a "Motion To Declare Offer Of
Judgment Null And Void," or something similar, the Court could
entertain it under its inherent power.  That power does not change
just because Ms. McGinnis used the word "strike" in the caption of
her motion.  That focus on semantics, at the expense of deciding
the merits of the parties' dispute, would run afoul of Rule 1's
requirement that the Court construe the rules to ensure a just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of the instant and every
case.

Ms. McGinnis rejected Midland Funding's offer of judgment when she
did not accept it within 14 days.  So the offer has "no continuing
efficacy."  The offer of judgment does not now, and did not ever,
moot the class action before the class certification stage.
Because the Supreme Court has addressed Ms. McGinnis's concern of
mootness, there is no reason to strike the offer.

Judge Wolson recognizes that an offer of judgment can create some
tension for a putative class representative who has to decide
whether to accept the offer and avoid any potential liability for
costs in the future or to continue to pursue the class's interest.
But Rule 23 permits a plaintiff who is afraid of the impact of
rejecting an offer of judgment to accept the offer without court
approval, as long as the plaintiff has not yet filed a class
certification motion.  A plaintiff in that position has to face the
same choice as any other plaintiff faced with an offer of judgment.
There's nothing unfair about that.  To hold otherwise would mean
that a defendant can never serve an offer of judgment on a putative
class representative.  If that were the case, Rule 68 would say so.
It doesn't, and the Judge does not read that limit into Rule 68 by
implication.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Wolson concludes that the offer of
judgment created a dilemma for Ms. McGinnis, just as offers of
judgment do for all the Plaintiffs.  But that's no reason to strike
the offer.  The Judge, therefore, denies Ms. McGinnis's motion.  An
appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sx4dyxb6 from Leagle.com.


MIRAJ COMMUNICATIONS: Rasheed Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Rasheed, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Miraj
Communications, LLC d/b/a Metro PCS, and Ashraf Umar, Case No.
4:21-cv-00707 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages from the Defendants Miraj Communications, LLC and
Ashraf Umar, and their cellular telephone businesses.

According to the complaint, in violation of the FLSA, the
Defendants failed to pay Mr. Rasheed and Members of the Plaintiff
Class overtime wages. Mr. Rasheed and Members of the Plaintiff
Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the
Defendants, yet they did not receive overtime wages as the FLSA
requires.

The Defendants have a company-wide policy, applied uniformly, that
results in the non-payment of employees' overtime wages. This
action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, all costs of the action, and post-judgment
interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages to
Mr. Rasheed and to Members of the Plaintiff Class.

The Plaintiff was an employee who worked as a store clerk at
Defendants' various Metro PCS stores.

Miraj Communications, LLC does business through its multiple
locations in Texas and other states as "Metro PCS".

The Members of the "Plaintiff Class" are current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendants who work, or worked, at one
or more business establishments (i.e., the Metro PCS cellular
retail stores) owned, operated and/or controlled by the
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          430 W. Bell Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 898-0982
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com

MISSISSIPPI: Supplemental Bid for Injunctive Relief in Amos Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL AMOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. NATHAN "BURL"
CAIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.),
Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for injunctive relief.

The case is a tale of two prisons -- if both the story of the
inmates and the story of the prison administrators are credited.
One prison, as told by the inmates and their retained experts, is
unfit for human habitation, is dangerously understaffed, contains
an array of inhumane conditions, and stands in clear violation of
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment.  The other prison, according to the administrators and
their retained experts, implemented recent repairs and increased
staffing numbers and, as a result, complies with the Eighth
Amendment, at least in most respects.

These conflicting stories describe the same place -- the
Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman -- just at different
times.  The inmates in the case, who have moved for injunctive
relief for four of the Plaintiffs, describe Parchman as it existed
in February of 2020.  The administrators describe Parchman as it
existed in June of 2020, after the implementation of numerous
improvements.

On Jan. 28, 2020, 33 inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
at Parchman filed a "First Amended Class-Action Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial" against Tommy Taylor, in his official
capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the
Superintendent of Parchman.  In their amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policies and practices
caused years of neglect at Parchman, which place them in imminent
danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated
by the Fourteenth Amendment.  The pleading, which includes a
proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

On June 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  Pursuant
to a scheduling order issued by the Court, the Defendants responded
to the motion on July 13, 2020, and the Plaintiffs replied on July
27, 2020.

The supplemental motion seeks injunctive relief as to four
Plaintiffs -- Aric Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and
Justin James.  The requested relief concerns the medical treatment
of these Plaintiffs as well as the environmental conditions to
which they are exposed.  The relevant factual background,
therefore, is limited to those aspects of the Injunction
Plaintiffs' medical treatment and housing directly related to the
requests for injunctive relief.

The Defendants argue that many of the Injunction Plaintiffs'
complaints have been addressed by the new Parchman administration
and the subsequent repairs.  The Plaintiffs respond that the
voluntary cessation of the allegedly illegal practices "does not
deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of
the practice."

Judge Brown holds that the Plaintiffs' argument is true, to an
extent.  Subsequent remedial measures are still relevant to their
claims for injunctive relief.  Specifically, the impact of the
remedial steps on an inmate's request for injunctive relief may
relate to four separate issues -- sovereign immunity, mootness, the
injunction requirements under the PLRA, and the general
requirements for injunctive relief.

In sum, she concludes that while the case is a tale of two prisons,
the present motion concerns only the story of four inmates.  She
says these inmates indisputably experienced inhumane and
intolerable conditions at Parchman in the early months of 2020 (and
likely before).  Her conclusions regarding Parchman's current state
are not intended to diminish these inmates' experiences or suggest
there is no form of redress available for what they were forced to
endure.  Nor does she hold that Parchman as it stands today is in
complete compliance with all constitutional standards or that the
prison administrators' work to improve Parchman is done.

The Judge merely concludes that, based on the administrators'
recent efforts, the limited injunctive relief requested for these
four inmates is inappropriate.  The prison administrators are
encouraged, if not cautioned, to continue to improve the conditions
at Parchman to ensure that the Parchman of early 2020 never
returns.  For now, because the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
for four inmates based on conditions at Parchman that no longer
exist or for which they have not shown a constitutional violation
to justify the relief sought, their supplemental motion for
injunctive relief is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/9vtn4v59 from Leagle.com.


MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Salim Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHAYAN SALIM, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILE TELESYSTEMS
PJSC, ANDREI A. DUBOVSKOV, ALEXEY V. KORNYA, and ANDREY KAMENSKY,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1589 (AMD) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint filed by
Defendant MTS.

On March 19, 2019, the named Plaintiff brought the class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Mobile
Telesystems PJSC ("MTS") and three executives--Andrei Dubovskov,
Alexey Kornya, and Andrey Kamensky. On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed the SAC.

MTS is a Moscow-based telecommunications company that provides
services in Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Armenia. From 2004 to
2012, MTS allegedly conspired to pay over $420 million in illegal
bribes for the benefit of an Uzbek government official, Gulnara
Karimova, so that it could operate in the Uzbek telecommunications
market. The company operated in Uzbekistan until 2012, when it
refused to continue meeting Karimova's bribery demands.

On March 18, 2014, Reuters reported that international scrutiny
over the Uzbek telecommunications market was growing, and that the
Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating two of MTS's
rivals--VimpelCom and TeliaSonera--for misconduct. The following
year, it was publicly reported that MTS, VimpelCom and TeliaSonera
paid bribes to Uzbek officials to obtain business contracts.

In a Form-6K filed on November 20, 2018, MTS disclosed that it had
reserved approximately $840 million USD (RUB 55.8 bln) to resolve
the SEC and DOJ investigations. That same day, the company hosted
an earnings conference call with analysts and investors during
which Defendant Kornya stated that MTS had "more visibility towards
the potential outcome" of the investigations. Following this
announcement, MTS's stock price fell $0.64 per share to close at
$7.45.

In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that between 2014 and 2019
("Class Period"), MTS issued false and misleading statements about
the company's potential liability for the bribery scheme, the
effectiveness of the company's internal controls and compliance
structure, and the company's cooperation with U.S. investigators.

According to the SAC, the Defendants' misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated MTS's stock price, causing the Plaintiffs to
suffer a loss after the company entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement ("DPA") with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") in 2019.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
that Defendants Dubovskov, Kornya and Kamensky ("Individual
Defendants") violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a).

MTS entered into a DPA with the DOJ on February 22, 2019, in which
the company agreed to pay a penalty of $850 million to resolve
charges of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and
records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"),
and violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA.

On March 6, 2019, the SEC announced that MTS consented to an SEC
order finding that it violated the anti-bribery, books and records
and internal accounting control provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and requiring it to pay a $100 million fine.
The DOJ credited the $100 million SEC fine in the DPA.

On May 21, 2020, MTS moved for dismissal, arguing that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately pled any false or misleading
statements, or the required "strong inference" of scienter.

The Plaintiffs' allegations of misleading statements or omissions
can be grouped into four categories: (i) recording a reserve; (ii)
disclosures about the nature of the DOJ and SEC investigations;
(iii) statements that MTS was cooperating with the investigation;
and (iv) statements regarding MTS's compliance with its code of
ethics.

The Plaintiffs allege that MTS violated the Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles' Accounting Standard Codification ("ASC") 450
and the International Financial Reporting Standards' International
Accounting Standard ("IAS") 37 because it did not timely record a
reserve for potential fines resulting from the DOJ and SEC
investigations. ASC 450 defines a loss contingency as an "existing
condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty
as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved
when one or more future events occur or fail to occur."

District Judge Ann M. Donnelly opines that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that MTS violated ASC 450 or IAS 37 by waiting to
record a reserve until November of 2018. The SAC also does not
allege sufficient facts to establish that MTS could have predicted
the outcome of the DOJ's investigation before November of 2018.

The Plaintiffs did not cite any authority for the proposition that
MTS had to disclose that VimpelCom and TeliaSonera entered into
DPAs for similar misconduct, Judge Donnelly notes. The requirement
under ASC 450 and IAS 37 that a company must disclose the nature of
its own liability cannot logically extend to reporting on the
liabilities of competitors. Accordingly, the Judge holds, these
omissions are not actionable.

The Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that MTS's statements
about cooperation were false, Judge Donnelly holds. The fact that
MTS did not also get credit for cooperation and remediation
pursuant to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy does not mean
that its statements about cooperation were false, she points out.
She adds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that
suggest that MTS's statements were false or misleading, nor that
the statements were false or misleading when they were made.
Accordingly, they have not alleged an actionable statement or
omission.

In short, Judge Donnelly holds, the Plaintiffs have not pled
sufficient facts to demonstrate that the challenged claims were
false or misleading.

To allege scienter under the "motive and opportunity" theory, a
plaintiff must show that the defendant "benefitted in some concrete
and personal way from the purported fraud," Judge Donnelly
explains, citing Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies, Inc., 2020 WL
4586792, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020).

Judge Donnelly notes that the Plaintiffs do not allege that MTS or
the Individual Defendants "benefitted" from the alleged fraud. She
adds that MTS did not conceal the fact of the various
investigations into its conduct; the company disclosed that it was
under investigation in 2014 and continued to provide updates as to
the status of the investigation throughout the Class Period. Nor
have the Plaintiffs alleged enough to show conscious misbehavior or
recklessness. Accordingly, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have
not established conscious recklessness.

Since the Plaintiffs have not identified any actionable
misstatements or adequately alleged scienter, they have not
adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim, Judge Donnelly opines.
Therefore, their Section 20(a) control person claim fails as well,
as control person liability under Section 20(a) depends on a
primary violation of Section 10(b). Though the Individual
Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, Judge Donnelly
dismisses the Plaintiffs' 20(a) claim against them on these
grounds.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, therefore, is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wndk8ac5 from
Leagle.com.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Reed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
WESTON REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and CR INSURANCE
GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01851-SK (N.D. Cal., March
16, 2021) brings this class action complaint alleging the
Defendants of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendant CR Insurance placed calls on
his cellular telephone, that was registered with the National Do
Not Call Registry on November 27, 2013. Defendant CR Insurance has
been prominently advertising its contractual relationship with
Defendant Molina Healthcare on its website. Purportedly, in an
attempt to promote Defendant Moline Healthcare's services,
Defendant CR Insurance used an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS) and a variety of numbers from September 2020 to March 2021
in placing its calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and
other similarly situated individuals.

Despite the Plaintiff's request to the Defendants to stop harassing
him with unwanted calls, their calls continued. Nevertheless, the
Plaintiff has received another call on November 20, 2020 from
Defendant CR Insurance asking to verify his information for the
Molina insurance, who attempted to charge his debit card three
times from December 2020 to January 2021 using the information he
provided to Defendant CR Insurance on November 19, 2020, added the
suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the
TCPA, the Plaintiff seeks for himself and each member of the
proposed classes an injunctive relief prohibiting such violations
of the TCPA by the Defendants in the future, as well as treble
damages and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants provides healthcare insurance services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com


MOWI ASA: Faces Farmed Salmon Price-Fixing Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
seafoodsource.com reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019
against four major Norwegian salmon farming firms has been given
the go-ahead to proceed by the judge presiding over the case.

Several separate suits were consolidated into one last year and
placed under the oversight of Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendants
in the case, which include Mowi, SalMar, Leroy Seafood, Grieg
Seafood, and Cermaq Group, made a motion to dismiss the suit in
January 2021, but Altonaga ruled on 23 March that the suit contains
enough meritorious claims to allow it to proceed.

"In sum, the [complaint] contains enough factual material to 'nudge
plaintiff's claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,'"
Altonaga wrote in her decision.

With the ruling, Altonaga set a two-week trial date for the case
beginning on 23 May, 2023, and ordered representatives for the
plaintiffs and defendants to selected a mediator by 23 June, 2021,
and file a report of their meeting within seven days of it
occurring. If mediation fails to resolve the case, witness
summaries are due to the court by 1 December, 2021, and within a
year of that date, the court will conduct class certification
hearings, exchanges of expert witness testimony, and complete the
fact-sharing process on issues germane to the case. Mediation must
be completed by 18 December, 2022, and pre-trial motions must be
received by the court by 3 January, 2023.

The lawsuit is based primarily on an ongoing investigation by the
European Commission into an investigation of potential
anti-competitive practices in the farmed Atlantic salmon sector in
Europe, first made public in February 2019. The investigation
included raids by E.C. officials of the Scottish and Dutch
corporate offices of several seafood companies based in Norway,
including Mowi, Grieg Seafood, Leroy Seafood, and SalMar.
Subsequently, in November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice
announced it had launched its own investigation and issued
subpoenas to selected Norwegian salmon firms.

The civil suit alleges the major players in Norway's farmed salmon
industry exchanged competitively sensitive information among
themselves, with the aim of artificially controlling the price of
farm-raised salmon bought by U.S. seafood buyers, in violation of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The original suit alleged manipulation of the spot market for
Atlantic salmon in Oslo, Norway's capital, forcing up prices, as
the spot market is frequently used as a baseline for longer-term
contract prices. But amendments made to the complaint added
concerns that the Norwegian companies in question jointly
manipulated the NASDAQ Salmon Index, a weighted average of weekly
reported sales prices for head-on gutted Atlantic salmon assembled
by a panel of Norwegian salmon exporters and producers. The index
was created in 2013 to ensure a more uniform price for salmon on
the open market.

"The NASDAQ Salmon Index, formally unveiled in April 2013, provided
defendants the direct ability to impact and influence the market
through their purchases of salmon on the spot market," the
complaint alleges, pointing to Mowi, SalMar, Cermaq, and Ocean
Quality serving as members of the index's advisory panel and Mowi's
subsidiary, Nova Sea, serving as a reporting member of the advisory
panel.

Mowi's Polish subsidiary, Morpol, played a key role in the
conspiracy, according to the suit, as it accounted for around 70
percent of salmon spot-market purchases, effectively pegging the
market to "supra-competitive" prices, the suit alleges.

"There is no legitimate pro-competitive justification for the key
industry players -- the Norwegian defendants here -- to sell
substantial quantities of salmon to Morpol on the spot market," the
suit says. "Mowi was fully capable of supplying Morpol's salmon
requirements through internal transfers, rather than through spot
market purchases (which were then used to set salmon prices
worldwide). In fact, Morpol's salmon needs amounted to only
approximately 10 percent of Mowi's salmon production on an annual
basis. Likewise, SalMar and other vertically integrated Defendants
had their own 'value-added' subsidiaries like Morpol, and instead
of directing that salmon to those subsidiaries (or other
non-competitor customers), sold the product on the spot market to
Morpol. Morpol's spot market purchases create the appearance of
greater consumer demand for these fish than actually is present in
the market and that increases and/or stabilizes salmon prices at
supra- competitive levels when these spot trades are reported to
market participants."

The lawsuit also alleges the Norwegian salmon companies exchanged
internal information - sometimes related to pricing - at meetings
of the Norwegian Seafood Council, the North Atlantic Seafood Forum,
the Norwegian Seafood Federation, and the Global Salmon Initiative.
It notes that, despite Russia's move in 2014 to ban all Norwegian
salmon from entering the country, resulting in the loss of a major
market for the Norwegian suppliers, salmon prices rose.

In their motion to dismiss the case, the Norwegian salmon companies
pilloried the plaintiffs' changes to their suit, "abandoning their
prior theory that defendants entered into the alleged conspiracy in
2015, in response to a Russian ban on imports of Norwegian
salmon."

"Plaintiffs now contend that defendants began conspiring in 2013 in
connection with the adoption of the NASDAQ Salmon Index. Plaintiffs
allege that defendants coordinated to manipulate the index to prop
up industry prices by engaging in artificial spot market
transactions. But . . . .  salmon prices trended downward after the
index was created. Moreover, the NASDAQ Salmon Index is an industry
pricing benchmark developed and overseen by third parties. Two
defendants - Leroy and Grieg - were never members of the NASDAQ
panel, and the majority of companies that contribute sales to the
index are not defendants," the motion states. "Under these
circumstances, plaintiffs have no plausible explanation as to how
defendants supposedly manipulated the index, which plaintiffs admit
is based on a lagged weekly average of prices provided by
defendants and non-defendants."

The salmon farmers also attacked the suit's heavy reliance on the
ongoing criminal investigations in the E.U. and U.S.

"Despite receiving defendants' document productions to governmental
agencies and having nearly a year and a half to allege a plausible
antitrust violation, [the suit] continues to be based on nothing
more than reports of these early-stage inquiries - with no charges
and no assertions of wrongdoing by anyone - and the normal workings
of a commodity industry," the motion states. "Notwithstanding their
acknowledgment that there are dozens of farm-raised salmon
producers in at least 10 different countries, plaintiffs claim that
five Norwegian companies accounting for a minority of sales in an
alleged global market carried out a years-long conspiracy that
inflated salmon prices worldwide. That claim defies logic."

In her ruling, Altonaga sided with the plaintiffs, agreeing they
"plausibly allege defendents reacted to this constriction of the
market [caused by the Russian ban] by colluding together to
manipulate the NASDAQ Salmon Index in order to protect themselves
from the effect of the ban."

Altonaga also said plaintiffs had adequately shown that the
Norwegian salmon farmers had shifted "from competition to
cooperation and their pricing conduct constituted a change in
behavior" and that their spot market transactions constituted
potentially anticompetitive conduct. Altonaga also said the
Norwegian companies' frequent swapping of executives and mutual
attendance at trade association meetings "make it more plausible
that the alleged conspiracy spawned from meetings at trade shows or
conventions."

"At this stage of the litigation, the court finds the alleged
substance and quantity of these communications, and the players
involved, support a reasonable inference of conspiracy," Altonaga
wrote.

Altonaga also dismissed the salmon companies' efforts to have the
case thrown out due to the expiration of the statute of
limitations, ruling the suit cannot be limited by the statute of
limitations if there is evidence of fraudulent concealment of a
conspiracy. [GN]

NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in BCERF Suit Set for April 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court in Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330, scheduled
a further status conference for April 7, 2021.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties agreed to stay the case.

During a status conference on February 4, 2021, the Court scheduled
a further status conference for April 7, 2021 and stated that if
Plaintiff does not voluntarily dismiss the action, the Court will
entertain a motion to dismiss in light of the finalization of the
Deora settlement.

The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Goode Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kerry Goode, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 3:21-cv-00026-CAR (M.D. Ga., March
25, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
http://www.ncaa.org/-- is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletes from up to 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cale H. Conley, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
          4200 Northside Parkway, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Phone: (404) 467-1155
          Fax: (404) 467-1166
          Email: cale@conleygriggs.com


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund,
Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the
Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Discovery
is on-going.

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit entitled, In RE Navient Corporation
Securities Litigation.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018
under the caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

In December 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and discovery is on-going.

The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Neptune Wellness Solutions,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.

Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT)

Class Period: July 24, 2019 to February 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

On May 9, 2019, Neptune announced that it had signed a definitive
agreement to acquire the assets of SugarLeaf Labs, LLC and Forest
Remedies LLC (collectively, "SugarLeaf"), a registered North
Carolina-based commercial hemp company providing extraction
services and formulated products (the "SugarLeaf Acquisition"). On
July 24, 2019, Neptune announced the closing of the SugarLeaf
Acquisition.

On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2021,
missing analyst expectations. Among other results, Neptune reported
third quarter revenues of CA$3.32 million and a net loss of CA$73.8
million, down 63.81% and over 1,000% year-over-year, respectively.
Neptune attributed the net loss, in part, to a CA$35.6 million
impairment of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million impairment of
"property, plant and equipment and right-of-use assets related to
the acquisition of SugarLeaf in July 2019," as well as accelerated
amortization of CA$13.95 million "also related to the SugarLeaf
acquisition." Additionally, the Company disclosed that its "[g]ross
margin declined to a loss of 268.3%," which included a non-cash
CA$7.39 million "write-down of inventory and deposits to reflect
their net realizable value."

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

Then, on February 17, 2021, prior to the start of the day's trading
session, Neptune issued a press release announcing the termination
of an at-the-market offering conducted by the Company, selling
9,570,735 of its common shares and raising approximately $18.6
million in gross proceeds. Just minutes later, Neptune issued a
second press release announcing that the Company was conducting a
$55 million registered direct offering.

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell another $0.21 per share,
or 10.82%, to close at $1.73 per share on February 17, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the cost
of Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in
the SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had
acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital
reserves; (ii) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise
more capital; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the Neptune Wellness class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/NEPT

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Twyman Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIMOTHY TWYMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NEW HAMPSHIRE BALL BEARINGS, INC.,
Case No. 20STCV02459, 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 24,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02573 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to include all remuneration when
calculating the overtime rate of pay, failure to authorize or
permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods,
failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment,
and unfair business practices.

New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. is a manufacturer of precision
bearings, headquartered in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Nancy E. Pritikin, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         379 Lytton Avenue
         Palo Alto, CA 94301
         Telephone: (650) 815-2691
         Facsimile: (650) 815-4694
         E-mail: NPritikin@sheppardmullin.com

                 - and –

         Krista Stevenson Johnson, Esq.
         Gal Gressel, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: KSJohnson@sheppardmullin.com
                 GGressel@sheppardmullin.com

NEW YORK CITY: Miller Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of New York, et
al. The case is styled as Dahkeem Miller, Jose Guity, Travis
Butler, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. City Of New York, Cynthia Brann, Timothy Farrell, Hazel
Jennings, Brenda Cooke, Case No. 1:21-cv-02616 (S.D.N.Y., March 25,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

New York City (NYC), often called simply New York --
https://www.nyc.gov/ -- is the most populous city in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric J. Hecker, Esq.
          CUTI HECKER WANG, LLP (NYC)
          305 Broadway, Suite 607
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 620-2602
          Fax: (212) 620-2612
          Email: ehecker@chwllp.com


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues ro defend a consolidated class action suit
related to the company's alleged false COVID-19 statements.

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.

On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements to the market and customers
about COVID-19.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between
February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.

Norwegian Cruise said, "We believe that the allegations contained
in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the
complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced
an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation
by the Florida Attorney General, the company received notifications
from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they
are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating
with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be
predicted at this time.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger
cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and
theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various
distribution channels including retail and travel agents,
international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian
Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is
based in Miami, Florida.


OAK VIEW GROUP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak View Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Oak View Group, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02601 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Oak View Group -- http://www.oakviewgroup.com-- operates as an
entertainment and sports facilities company. The Company offers
arena and stadium alliance, consulting, sponsorships and
partnerships, venture capital, and global facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHIO: Dismissal of Entire Claims in Jones v. ODRC in Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON L. JONES, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE
DEWINE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3301 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
enters her Order and Report and Recommendation:

   a. recommending that the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs'
      claims in their entirety, but grants leave to Plaintiff
      Jones to amend to develop his individual claim(s);

   b. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default
      Judgment; and

   c. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for the
      Appointment of Counsel.

On May 6, 2020, 21 Plaintiffs, who are state inmates under the
supervision of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections ("ODRC") at the Belmont Correctional Institution,
proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed the putative
class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Governor Mike
DeWine and the ODRC.  They initiated the action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, but on June 29,
2020, the case was transferred to the Court.

On Aug. 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Jones leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.  No other Plaintiffs sought leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

On Sept. 21, 2020, 18 Plaintiffs filed what appears to be an
Amended Complaint against Gov. DeWine; Annette Chambers-Smith, the
Director of the ODRC; Ernie Moore, the Deputy Director of the ODRC;
Dr. Eddy Andrews, the Medical Director of the ODRC; and Karen
Stanforth, the Chief Medical Inspector of the ODRC.

On Oct. 24, 2020, six Plaintiffs filed a Request for Removal from
Civil Action, seeking to withdraw from the subject action and file
their claims in a separate lawsuit.  The Court takes judicial
notice that these six Plaintiffs are pursuing their claims in a
related case, Joseph Shine-Johnson, et al. v. Mike DeWine, et al.,
S.D. Ohio Case No. 20-5919.  For good cause shown, the Court
therefore grants the Plaintiffs' request.  Plaintiffs Joseph
Shine-Johnson, Jarron V. Earley-Tabor, Rubin L. Williams, Antonio
Henderson, Victor Steel, and James Goodson are dismissed from the
case with prejudice.

With regard to the 12 remaining Plaintiffs, the matter is now
before the Court for an initial screen of the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2), 1915A to identify
cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.  The matter is also before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Default Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel.

First, Judge Deavers finds that the Amended Complaint is titled as
followed: "Plaintiff(s) Class Action Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 23(a)(b)(2) & (3), in Executive Order of Release Enacted
by Defendants."  The Amended Complaint, however, is devoid of any
allegations on behalf of a putative class.  Therefore, to the
extent the Plaintiffs intend to assert claims on behalf of a class,
the Amended Complaint is deficient.  Moreover, because the
Plaintiffs are non-attorneys and inmates proceeding pro se, they
cannot adequately represent a class.

Second, according to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs are
inmates at Belmont Correctional Institution ("BCI"), and they
allege that the Defendants are not adhering to proper social
distancing and other public health-related protocols in light of
the COVID-19 pandemic.  They purport to allege a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

However, Judge Deavers finds that the Amended Complaint does not
contain any class allegations, and it does not set forth to define
a putative class.  Rather, the Amended Complaint contains multiple
general allegations regarding the conditions at BCI in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, including that "all incarcerated people at
BCI are at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19."

Separate from the Plaintiffs' collective claims, Plaintiff Jones
also appears to assert an individual claim, alleging that in April
2020 he requested a breathing treatment for his bronchitis, but he
was told by three separate nurses at BCI that they were not allowed
to provide the treatment.  Plaintiff Jones attaches a sworn
declaration to the Amended Complaint in support.  Even reading the
Declaration as part of the Amended Complaint, Judge Deavers finds
it unclear what relief Plaintiff Jones seeks.

Third, the Plaintiffs bring their federal law claims against the
Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  As a general rule, a
plaintiff proceeding under Section 1983 must allege that the
deprivation of his rights was intentional or at least the result of
gross negligence.  Mere negligence is not actionable under Section
1983.

Judge Deavers finds that the Plaintiffs expressly bring their
claims against the Defendants in their official capacities.  The
Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution operates as a
bar to federal court jurisdiction when a private citizen sues a
state or its instrumentalities unless the state has given express
consent.  It is well established that Section 1983 does not
abrogate the Eleventh Amendment.  Because Ohio has not waived its
sovereign immunity in federal court, it is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit for monetary damages.  The Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages.  Accordingly, the Judge recommends that the
Plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief be dismissed.

That recommendation notwithstanding, there is an exception to the
state sovereign immunity rule, "if an official-capacity suit seeks
only prospective injunctive or declaratory relief."  Because the
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the
Defendants, the exception to the state sovereign immunity rule may
apply.  Judge Deavers analyzes the Plaintiffs' claims to see if the
exception applies to any of the Defendants.

Judge Deavers recommends that (i) the Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant DeWine be dismissed in their entirety because while the
Governor may direct broad policy initiatives to various state
agencies such as the ODRC, those agencies retain responsibility for
direct enforcement of those policies; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
deliberate indifference claims against the ODRC Defendants be
dismissed in their entirety because they have not alleged facts
sufficient to demonstrate that the ODRC Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference" within the meaning of the Eighth
Amendment; (ii) the Plaintiffs' medical deliberate indifference
claims against the ODRC Defendants be dismissed in their entirety
because it appears Plaintiff Jones may believe he has an individual
claim for medical deliberate indifference, but the Plaintiffs
collectively have failed to state such a claim.

Fourth, Plaintiff Jones, who has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, also appears to bring an individual claim against
the Defendants under Section 1983.  Specifically, he alleges that
he has bronchitis, and in April 2020, he requested a breathing
treatment for his bronchitis, but he was told by three separate
nurses that they were not allowed to provide the treatment to
Plaintiff Jones.

Judge Deavers cannot conclude that Plaintiff Jones has stated a
claim upon which relief can be granted at this point.  It is
unclear against whom Plaintiff Jones asserts his allegations, as
neither the Amended Complaint nor the Declaration identifies any
Defendants by name.  Although respectful of the Plaintiff's pro se
status, the Court is not permitted to guess what claims the
Plaintiff asserts, let alone against which Defendant(s) he asserts
such claims.

Accordingly, the Judge recommends that Plaintiff Jones be granted
leave to amend the Complaint to develop his individual claim(s).
Should Plaintiff Jones choose to amend his Complaint to assert
individual claims against specific Defendants, then this Court will
evaluate the viability of such claims at that time.  Plaintiff
Jones is advised that, should the Court allow it, any forthcoming
Amended Complaint shall be limited to his, and only his individual
claims.

Fifth, the matter is also before the Court for consideration of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment.  The Court has not yet
ordered service of the Plaintiffs' Complaint, let alone service of
the now-operative Amended Complaint.  Therefore, Judge Deavers
holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is
premature, as the Defendants have not missed any deadline for
answering or otherwise responding to the Plaintiffs' pleadings.
Accordingly, she denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion.

Lastly, the matter is also before the Court for consideration of
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel.  Although the
Court has statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e) to
appoint counsel in a civil case,  Judge Deavers holds that
appointment of counsel is not a constitutional right.  She has
evaluated whether such exceptional circumstances exist in the case
and determines that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at
this juncture.  Accordingly, the Judge denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Deavers grants the Plaintiffs'
Request for Removal.  Plaintiffs Shine-Johnson, Earley-Tabor,
Williams, Henderson, Steel, and Goodson are dismissed from the case
with prejudice.

Further, the Judge recommends that the Court dismisses the
Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, but that the grants leave to
Plaintiff Jones to amend to develop his individual claim(s).

Finally, the Judge denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Default, and denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for
the Appointment of Counsel.

The Clerk is directed to strike ECF No. 18 from the docket.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and
Recommendation, it may, within 14 days, file and serve on all
parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically
designating the Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection.  Response to
objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a
copy.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order & Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxm32pv6 from
Leagle.com.


ONTRAK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ:OTRK) securities
between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The case is captioned Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., No.
21-cv-01987, and is assigned to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The
Ontrak class action lawsuit charges Ontrak and certain of its
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

Ontrak is a healthcare company that offers a
Predict-Recommend-Engage platform that organizes and automates
healthcare data integration and analytics. A critical component of
this platform are Ontrak programs, which are designed to provide
healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that
cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions.

The Ontrak class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Ontrak's largest customer evaluated
Ontrak on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on
achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical
outcomes or medical cost savings; (ii) as a result, Ontrak's
largest customer did not find Ontrak's program to be effective and
was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (iii)
because this customer accounted for a significant portion of
Ontrak's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized
impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Ontrak's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak revealed that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021.
Ontrak stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings." Ontrak also stated that "the coaching model
which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics." On this
news, Ontrak's share price fell by more than 46%, damaging
investors.

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

Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Michael Albert, 800-449-4900
malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

ONTRAK INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ontrak, Inc.
("Ontrak" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:OTRK) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ontrak's largest customer gauged the
Company's performance on the basis of reaching the lowest cost per
medical visit possible rather than patient outcomes or medical cost
savings. This customer found the Company's program to be
ineffective and was likely to terminate its contract. Because this
customer represented a significant portion of the Company's
revenue, the loss of this contract would have a significant impact
on its financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Ontrak,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY COE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY,
PACIFIC SEAFOOD, RESOURCE STAFFING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00278041, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on March 23, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00270 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime compensation in violation of the California
Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code.

Pacific Choice Seafood Company is a provider of seafood products
based in California.

Pacific Seafood is a seafood company based in Oregon.

Resource Staffing Group, Inc. is a recruitment services and
staffing firm headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Dan M. Forman, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 612-6300
         E-mail: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com

                  - and –

         Corey J. Cabral, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         900 University Avenue, Suite 200
         Sacramento, CA 95825
         Telephone: (916) 361-0991
         E-mail: ccabral@cdflaborlaw.com

PACIFIC TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Trimming
Enterprise Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pacific
Trimming Enterprise Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02610 (S.D.N.Y., March
25, 2021).

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

Pacific Trimming Enterprise -- https://www.pacifictrimming.com/ --
is a craft store in New York City offering tools & trimmings for
fashion crafters including buttons, chains, zippers, elastic &
hardware.[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


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bid to Dismiss/Strike McClellan FDCPA Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN McCLELLAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. PATENAUDE &
FELIX, A.P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-678-NR (W.D. Pa.), Judge
J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, as well as strike their proposed
class definition and allegations.

Plaintiffs McClellan and Michael Cockerham filed a putative class
action against Defendant Patenaude & Felix ("P&F") for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

P&F now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, as well
as strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition and
allegations.  First, it argues that the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing because they did not suffer a "concrete" and
"particularized" injury.

Judge Ranjan disagrees.  He says the Plaintiffs assert that they
suffered additional expenses, fees, and costs directly due to P&F's
allegedly improper conduct.  That is sufficient to satisfy the
"concrete and particularized injury" requirement for Article III
standing.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently established
standing at this stage.

Next, P&F argues that Counts I and II should be dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(6) because they do not allege violations of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiffs bring two counts in their amended complaint.  Count
I alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, specifically
Section 1692e(5) & (10).  Count II alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692d.

Judge Ranjan finds that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient
allegations to state a plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA,
and thus satisfy the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.  He concludes that the
Plaintiffs' allegations state plausible claims for relief under the
plain language of the FDCPA.  This is especially so in light of the
broad protections provided by the FDCPA.  Details surrounding P&F's
actual motivations, the effect of P&F's actions on the Plaintiffs,
and the precise communications between the Plaintiffs (and their
attorneys) and P&F, are all relevant considerations that may affect
the Plaintiffs' claims.  These questions must be determined through
discovery.  Dismissal is thus unwarranted.

Finally, P&F moves to strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class
definition and allegations under Rule 12(f).  It argues that the
Plaintiffs use an improper "fail-safe" class definition, and "the
'competent attorney' standard alone thwarts certification in the
matter.

Judge Ranjan acknowledges that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
definition may be problematic, as the definition inherently assumes
an FDCPA violation.  However, he finds that P&F's class arguments
are better addressed at the class-certification stage.  He,
therefore, denies the P&F's motion to strike without prejudice.  To
the extent that the Plaintiffs move to certify a class defined in
the same manner as pled in the amended complaint, P&F can raise
this same argument at the class-certification stage.

Accordingly, Judge Ranjan denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss/strike.  It is without prejudice to the Defendant raising
its arguments on a more complete record at subsequent stages of the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2zc3n3a9 from Leagle.com.


PERSONAL TOUCH: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential class action claims
on behalf of victims of a January 27, 2021 cybersecurity attack on
the private cloud hosted by Personal Touch Holding Corp.'s ("PTHC")
managed service providers.

PTHC's recently published "Notice of Security Breach" stated that
the following information was involved in the cyberattack:

"PTHC's private cloud-stored business records of PTHC and its
direct and indirect subsidiaries . . . where patients' personally
identifiable information and protected health information were
contained. This information may include medical treatment
information, insurance card, and health plan benefit numbers,
medical record numbers, first and last name, address, telephone
numbers, date of birth, Social Security number, and financial
information, including check copies, credit card numbers, and bank
account information."

"Employee information may include first and last name, address,
telephone numbers, date of birth, Social Security numbers
(including dependent and spouse Social Security numbers), driver's
license number, passport numbers, birth certificates, background
and credit reports, demographic information, usernames and
passwords used at the Company, personal email addresses,
fingerprints, insurance card and health and welfare plan benefit
numbers, retirement benefits information, medical treatment
information, check copies, and other financial information
necessary for payroll."

PTHC's "Notice of Security Breach" listed the following direct and
indirect company subsidiaries:

PT Intermediate Holding, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of W. Va.
Inc.; PT Hospice of PA Inc.; Personal Touch Care of PA, Inc.;
Personal Touch Home Care of Ohio, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of
Baltimore, Inc.; PT Home Services of San Antonio, Inc.;
Houston-Personal Touch Home Care, Inc.; PT Home Services of Dallas,
Inc.; Houston-Personal Touch Home-Aides, Inc.; Personal Touch Home
Care of Indiana, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Greater
Portsmouth, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of N.J., Inc.; PT
Management Services, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc.;
Personal Touch Home Care of KY, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of
S.E. Mass., Inc.; PTS of Westchester, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home
Aides of New York, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Westchester,
Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Long Island, Inc.; Personal Touch
Home-Aides, Inc. (PA); Personal Touch Home Care of VA, Inc.;
Personal Touch Hospice of VA, Inc.; Personal Touch Home --Aides,
Inc. (MA); Personal Touch Home Aides of VA, Inc.; Personal Touch
Home Care of Mass., Inc.; Personal Touch Home Aides of Baltimore,
Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care IPA, Inc.

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE A VICTIM OF PTHC'S DATA BREACH AND HAVE
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT KEHOE LAW FIRM'S CLASS ACTION DATA
BREACH INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS, PLEASE CONTACT
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C., MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT.
804, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff--side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud,
negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled
sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the
aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm represents plaintiffs seeking to recover
investment losses resulting from corporate wrongdoing or
malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and
consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data
breaches. [GN]

PLUG POWER: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) and certain of its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Plug
securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged
to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew for additional information at
(844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions
focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric
mobility and stationary power markets.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company 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) the Company was
reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting.

Throughout the Class Period, Plug touted its internal controls over
financial reporting and its record billings for the year. Then, on
March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a Notification
of Late Filing with the Securities Exchange Commission stating it
could not timely file its annual report for the period ending
December 31, 2020, because it was completing a "review and
assessment of the treatment of certain costs with regards to
classification between Research and Development versus Costs of
Goods Sold, the recoverability of the right to use assets
associated with certain leases, and certain internal controls over
these and other areas." The Company stated "[i]t [was] possible
that one or more of these items may result in charges or
adjustments to current and/or prior period financial statements."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. The share price continued to
decline by $9.48, or 19.4%, over three consecutive trading sessions
to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021.

Then, on March 16, 2021, Plug announced that it will have to
restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 as
well as quarterly filings for 2019 and 2020. As a result of the
restatement, Plug would not file its Form 10K as planned.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March
1, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew
(844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is May 7, 2021.

                   About Scott+Scott Attorneys

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

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

RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or the
"Company") (NYSE:RRC) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and
docketed under 21-cv-00301, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Range Resources
common stock between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Range Resources securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its
subsidiary, Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC, engage in the
exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil
properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly
owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian
region, including Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania regulations,
Range Resources must apply for the correct designation of the
status of its wells with local regulators. These status
designations include, for example, "active," "inactive," or
"abandoned."

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP")
enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a
well's status. According to the DEP, "inactive" wells must be
viable for future use within a certain time frame. If a well is not
viable for future use within that time frame, then the well should
be classified as "abandoned" and must be plugged. Improperly
classified wells present serious health, safety, and environmental
concerns, further highlighting the need for the correct designation
of a well's status.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the
status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially
decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to
plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a
DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January
2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the
DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On February 10, 2021, shortly before the close of the trading
session, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range
Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on
January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had
begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting
and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in
Fayette County, Pennsylvania-specifically concerning whether the
well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the
purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for
information on other wells the Company had requested to designate
as inactive, the DEP found that "between July 16, 2013, and October
11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional wells were placed on
inactive status but were never used again" and that several of the
Company's "wells had not been in use for 12 months at the time
Range Resources submitted its applications for inactive status,"
even though "after 12 consecutive months of no production, the well
would be classified as abandoned and must be plugged." In addition
to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range Resources was ultimately
required to plug the wells the agency identified as having no
viable future use to remediate the issue.

The following day, as the market fully digested the significance of
the DEP's announcement, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to
close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.

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

RANGE RESOURCES: Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Range
Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or "the Company")
(NYSE:RRC) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 29,
2016 and February 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Range Resources had improperly designated
the status of its wells in the state of Pennsylvania since 2013.
This action artificially decreased the Company's cost estimates to
plug and abandon its wells. The Company was the subject of an
investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection ("DEP") from sometime between September 2017 to January
2021 for improperly designating its well status. The DEP
investigation ultimately led to the Company incurring fines from
the state of Pennsylvania. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Range
Resources, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

REAL WATER: Milberg Coleman Files Lawsuit Over Defective Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC ("Milberg") has filed
a class action lawsuit against Real Water, a Las Vegas-based
bottled water brand, claiming that the product causes liver failure
and other side effects.

Real Water, owned by Affinity Lifestyles.com, Inc. of Las Vegas,
Nevada claims its product is the "healthiest drinking water
available." Thanks to its alkaline properties and infusion with
"negative ions," says Affinity, Real Water can "help your body to
restore balance and reach your full potential." However, according
to Milberg's class action complaint, Real Water failed to disclose
that its product is defective and can cause health problems that
include fever, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, jaundice, liver failure,
and hospitalization, despite knowing about these harmful effects
since at least November 2020.

"Defendant's Real Water is not the healthiest drinking water
available," states Milberg's complaint, filed on March 21 in U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada. "In fact, it is far from
it. Defendant's Product does not help one reach their full
potential. In fact, Defendant's Product has caused liver damage to
children due to non-viral hepatitis."

In November 2020, a 2-year-old from Southern Nevada was transported
to the hospital for liver malfunction. While there, it became
apparent that multiple children have had similar ailments. The only
common link among the group was drinking Real Water. The Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) began an investigation into these cases
on March 16. On March 21, FDA issued a warning that consumers,
restaurants, and retailers should not drink, cook with, sell, or
serve Real Water. A company press release says that Real Water has
asked stores to stop selling its products "throughout the United
States until the issue is resolved."

"Affinity makes a lot of impressive-sounding claims about Real
Water's health benefits and innovative technology," says Dan
Bryson, a Senior Partner at Milberg. "It goes out of its way to
deride the dangers of tap water when, ironically, drinking tap
water appears to be far safer than drinking Real Water."

Milberg's Real Water class action lawsuit has a proposed nationwide
class of all persons in the United States who purchased the product
for personal, family, or household use. It also includes a subclass
of California residents who purchased Real Water. The lawsuit seeks
damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of the class members. Two
of the lead plaintiffs suffered nausea after drinking the water,
and one plaintiff noticed blood in her urine.

"Consumer class actions play an important role in protecting public
health by drawing attention to dangerous products," said Milberg
Senior Partner Greg Coleman. "Many of the so-called health products
out there are anything but, and litigation like this helps to root
out bogus manufacturer claims."

Media Inquiries
Karine Lim
Senior Brand Executive
klim@milberg.com

About Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman

Established by members of Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP, Sanders
Phillips Grossman LLC, Greg Coleman Law PC, and Whitfield Bryson
LLP,  Milberg represents plaintiffs in the areas of antitrust,
securities, financial fraud, consumer protection, automobile
emissions claims, defective drugs and devices, environmental
litigation, financial and insurance litigation, and cyber law and
security. Milberg has nearly 100 attorneys operating on three
continents. The firm and its affiliates have recovered over $50
billion in verdicts and settlements. Milberg offices are located in
New York, London, California, Georgia, Mississippi, Washington,
Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky,
Louisiana, and Puerto Rico. [GN]

RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Nix Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the securities class action suit related to the New Drug
Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam, is pending.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the New Drug Application ("NDA") for IV
meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response
and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to
questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs
with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during
the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was
granted without prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16,
2020, the Company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss.

In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio
accepted assignment by the Company of all of its obligations in
connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify
it for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation.

The Company and Baudax Bio believe that the lawsuit is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI)
Class Period: 5/3/2018 - 2/25/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-renewable-energy-group-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company 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. [GN]

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Renewable Energy Group, Inc.
("Renewable Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REGI) and reminds
investors of the May 3, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Renewable
Energy stock or options between May 3, 2018 and February 25, 2021
and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/REGI.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that
due to failures in the diesel additive system, petroleum diesel was
not periodically added to certain loads by the Company and was
instead added by the Company's customers; (2) that, as a result,
Renewable Energy was not the proper claimant for certain BTC
payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September
30, 2020; (3) that, as a result, Renewable Energy's revenue and net
income were overstated for certain periods; (4) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting related to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel
gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, to
close at $77.77 per share on February 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Renewable Energy's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

REPRO MED: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Humenik v. Repro Med
Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems, et al., (Case No.
21-cv-02632) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical
Systems ("KORU" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) securities between
August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

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

On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its
third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales
declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call
the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among
other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain
customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.97, or 32%, to
close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced
its preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting
revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over
the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other
things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of
strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In
the press release, KORU also announced that its CEO, Donald
Pettigrew, resigned, effective immediately.

On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80, or 15.5%, to close at
$4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of
allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key customers and
to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's
net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased KORU securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased KORU securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

REPRO MED: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Humenik v. Repro Med
Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems, et al., (Case No.
21-cv-02632) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical
Systems ("KORU" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) securities between
August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

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

On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its
third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales
declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call
the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among
other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain
customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.97, or 32%, to
close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced
its preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting
revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over
the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other
things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of
strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In
the press release, KORU also announced that its CEO, Donald
Pettigrew, resigned, effective immediately.

On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80, or 15.5%, to close at
$4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of
allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key customers and
to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's
net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the KORU securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Repro Med
Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KURO" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: KRMD) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 4,
2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 25, 2021.

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. KORU increased the usage of allowances
such as growth rebates to key customers to retain their business
and improve growth starting in January 2020. As these rebates built
up, the Company's net sales were likely to decline. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about KORU, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Meena Reuben.

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against
the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California
Superior Court for San Mateo County.

The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals
for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly
intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the
Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and
632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged
violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages.


On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
extend time for the Company to respond to Reuben's complaint. The
Company has not responded to the complaint. This litigation is
still in its earliest stages.

RingCentral said, "Based on the information known by the Company as
of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable
to the preparation of the Company's consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against this lawsuit."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.

RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court entered its
final order and judgment approving the settlement in the putative
class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended
complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that
the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by
allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver
prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for
reelection, and others.

Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously
liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks
statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims.
The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January
4, 2018.

On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition
brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on
April 13, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and
opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious
liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The
Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to
certify a class on July 9, 2019.

The Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion,
which were fully briefed and are pending decision by the court.
Discovery closed on October 25, 2019. The Company filed a motion
for summary judgment on November 14, 2019. Hurley opposed the
motion, which also has been fully briefed and is pending decision
by the court.

The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January
23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on January
25, 2021, at which time the Court tentatively gave final approval
of the settlement.

The Court thereafter entered its final order and judgment approving
the settlement on February 9, 2021. Any appeal of the Court's order
must be filed by March 12, 2021.

RingCentral said, "If no appeal is filed, the settlement will
become effective as of March 12, 2021. The consolidated financial
statements include an immaterial accrual for the estimated loss
that is expected to occur."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.

RIO TINTO: Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Mine Expansion Escalates
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new claim filed in a US court over Rio Tinto's (ASX, LON, NYSE:
RIO) handling of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine expansion in
Mongolia alleges the mining giant concealed the real cause of the
delays that have held back its most important growth project.

In a 163-page claim filed in New York, Pentwater Capital Management
-- the second-largest shareholder in Rio-controlled Turquoise Hill
(TSX, NYSE: TRQ) -- has included the testimony of 12 individuals
who worked for Rio or its contractors and which could tip the
balance against the miner.

The document cites defective Chinese steel, incompetent engineering
and poor procurement as some of the "true" reasons behind the mine
expansion's massive cost increase and delays.

The new claim expands upon the initial class action lodged late
last year, which accused Rio of being too slow in telling investors
of the cost and schedule blowouts.

Both Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill have largely blamed the setbacks
to the late realization that the project's geology was weaker than
first thought and needing a change of technical approach.

The complaint quotes a former employee described as a "top manager"
who worked at Oyu Tolgoi from 2013 to 2019 for mining contractor
Redpath, saying the notion that geological issues were the primary
cause of the delays was "one hundred per cent pure horseshit".

"The project was being delayed because of engineering and
execution. There may have been some pockets of bad ground, but
that's expected in any mine," the amended claim quotes.

A second Red Path project manager said the steel required for the
main shaft at the underground mine was "consistently subpar, had
structural defects and issues with fabrication, including steel
parts not being made to specifications, had poor joints, and was
otherwise unusable and dangerous."

In its filling, Pentwater claims the oversights effectively forced
managers to rebuild much of Shaft 2 from scratch. The task, the
complaint says, required workers to replace more than 40,000 bolts
and about 95% of the steel in the shaft's headframe, predictably
causing costs and schedule delays "to skyrocket."

The activist investor argues that despite being informed of ongoing
issues with the project throughout 2017 and 2018, Rio and Turquoise
kept telling investors the expansion was on track for a capital
cost of $5.3 billion and would achieve first production in the
first quarter of 2021.

It was not until July 2019 that Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill
announced the project would require an additional $1.2bn to $1.9bn
in capital and was 16 to 30 months behind schedule.

"Ultimately, Turquoise Hill investors incurred massive losses as
Turquoise Hill shares lost well over 70% of their value when the
true extent of the delays and cost overruns at Oyu Tolgoi came to
light," the document reads.

                      Never-Ending Troubles

Mounting investor activism is just one of the may headaches Rio
Tinto has had while building what would rank as one of the world's
three largest copper mines when operating at full tilt. Full
production is now expected to be by 2025 at the earliest, with
first output planned for October 2022.

There was also an open dispute between Rio and Turquoise Hill over
funding the expansion's cost increase. The row began heating up in
early November when Turquoise Hill launched arbitration proceedings
against Rio Tinto to get clarity on the issue and ended up costing
the Canadian miner's CEO, Ulf Quellmann, his job.

Pentwater's fresh claims come as Rio's new copper boss Bold Baatar
holds crucial talks with the Mongolian government over Oyu Tolgoi's
future.

The company has repeatedly said the underground expansion is its
most important growth project. Once completed, Oyu Tolgoi will
churn out 480,000 tonnes of copper a year from 2028 to 2036. This
would make it the biggest new copper mine to come on stream in
several years.

Rio Tinto owns the mine through its majority stake in Turquoise
Hill, which has a 66% interest in Oyu Tolgoi. The Mongolian state
has the remaining 34% of the operation, located in the South Gobi
desert near the border with China. [GN]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MILHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01601 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and violation of California Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' actions to block retail
investors from accessing the market of several stocks, including
Gamestop Corp. (GME), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), AMC Entertainment
Holdings Inc. (AMC), on their web-based application, while allowing
institutional investors to trade as usual. According to Robinhood,
the trading activity on its platform had become so voluminous and
the trades themselves were so volatile that the company was forced
to restrict the most volatile trades. The Plaintiff and Class
members allege that Robinhood breached obligations owed to its
users and caused them substantial losses by failing to have enough
cash on hand to satisfy the clearinghouse's demands at a time when
access to the markets was critical to Robinhood's users.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                  
         Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
         Eviealle Dawkins, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
                 edawkins@edelson.com

                - and –

         Lily E. Hough, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: lhough@edelson.com

ROBO CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Shop Staff, Amaya Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBO CAR INC. dba MAGIC AUTO CENTER; BIJAN
RASTEGAR; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV11527 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act 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 provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, and wrongful
constructive discharge.

The Plaintiff worked in the sales and finance department at Magic
Auto Center in California from in or around 2018 until September
15, 2020.

Robo Car Inc., doing business as Magic Auto Center, is an
automobile dealership business located in Los Angeles County,
California. [BN]

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

ROOT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of those who: (i) purchased or acquired  Root, Inc. ("Root,"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ROOT) between October 28, 2020, and
March 8, 2021 (the "Class Period") and/or (b) Root Class A common
stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio to recover damages for Root investors under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash
flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii)
accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash
infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the
Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven
advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in
fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with
respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

On March 9, 2021, Bank of America securities analyst Joshua Shanker
initiated coverage of Root with an "Underperform" rating on the
premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until
2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash
infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs."
Shanker also noted that insurers Progressive, Allstate, and
Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would continue to impede the Company's
profitability, with progressive and Allstate having a "sizable
advantage over Root in terms of amount of [telematics] data as well
as engagement with the data" used to price their auto insurance.

On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46% to
close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total
decline of 54.93% from the offering price.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you
must move the court no later than May 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Root securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rootinc-root-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-382/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

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

Contact Information

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

ROOT INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Root, Inc. ("Root" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ROOT): (a) securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering").

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

On December 1, 2020, post-market, Root announced its third quarter
2020 financial results, reporting revenues of $50.5 million (or
down 36.6% year-over-year) and earnings per share ("EPS") of -$2.20
per share (missing consensus estimates by $1.79 per share).

On this news, the Company's stock fell $2.30, or over 13%, to close
at $14.70 per share on December 2, 2020.

Then, on February 25, 2021, post-market, Root announced its fourth
quarter and full year 2020 financial results, reporting EPS of
-$0.72, missing consensus estimates by $0.07 per share.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $2.93, or nearly 18%, to
close at $13.49 per share on February 26, 2021.

Then, on March 9, 2021, BofA Securities analyst Joshua Shanker
initiated coverage of Root with an "Underperform" rating on the
premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until
2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash
infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs."
The report stated that already established market players would
continue to impede the Company's profitability with superior
telematics data and their dominant market positions.

On this news, stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to close
at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a 55% decline
from the IPO price.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash
flow for at least several years following the IPO; (2) accordingly,
the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to
meet its cash flow needs; (3) notwithstanding the Defendants'
touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages,
several of the Company's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (4) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Root securities during the
Class Period and/or Class A common stock pursuant to the IPO, you
may move the Court no later than May 18, 2021 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

ROOT INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Root, Inc. (ROOT)
Class Period: 10/28/2020 - 3/8/2021, or shares issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the October 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-root/


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 KSF

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF 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]

ROOT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Root, Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

ROOT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/root-inc-information-request-form?prid=14118&wire=1

Root, Inc (NASDAQ:ROOT)

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 18, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/root-inc-information-request-form?prid=14118&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Root would foreseeably fail
to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following
the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require
significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii)
notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly
unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's
established industry peers in fact possessed significant
competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia,
telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]

ROOT INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT) who: (1) purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Root securities between October
28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or
(2) purchased or otherwise acquired Root Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
18, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Root 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 Root class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.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. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 18, 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 4 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, the Offering
documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Root would foreseeably fail to
generate positive cash flow for at least several years following
the IPO; (2) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require
significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (3)
notwithstanding the defendants' touting of Root's purportedly
unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's
established industry peers in fact possessed significant
competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia,
telematics data and data engagement; and (4) as a result, the
Offering documents and defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Root class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

ROOT INC: The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Root, Inc (NASDAQ: ROOT)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ROOT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/root-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14172&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Root, Inc made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at
least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the
Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to
meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants'
touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages,
several of the Company's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

Shareholders have until May 18, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the ROOT lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

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

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

ROOT INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Root, Inc.
("Root" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ROOT) for violations of the
federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's October 28, 2020 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), or between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the
firm before May 18, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Root was likely to fail to generate
positive cash flow for years following its IPO. As a result, the
Company was likely to require injections of cash to fund its
operations. The Company touted its data-driven advantages in the
marketplace, but its established industry competitors had already
developed superior technology that resulted in a competitive
advantage over the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's
Offering documents and public statements during the IPO and class
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Root, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]

SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Montoya
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; PHILIP PRESSEL; and AARON
GRESSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19cv0054 JM(BGS)(S.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction against the City of San Diego.

On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint asserting claims for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, et seq.,
California Civil Code section 51, et seq., California Civil Code
section 54, et seq., (the Rehabilitation Act, and California's
Disabled Persons Act); California Government Code section 4450, et
seq., and California Government Code section 11135, et seq.

On March 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC").  The Court issued a detailed order
denying the City's motion to dismiss the FAC but granting the
motions to dismiss brought by the private entities that rent the
dockless vehicles to third party individuals, which Plaintiffs
categorized as the "Dockless Vehicle Defendants."  The Plaintiffs
chose not to amend their claims against the Dockless Vehicle
Defendants.

Following a joint motion to amend, the Plaintiffs filed the Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC alleges that the Plaintiffs,
who are individuals with disabilities, had found their access to
San Diego's sidewalks diminished by the proliferation of dockless
electric vehicles currently in use in the City.  They allege that
people using the dockless electric vehicles either travel on the
sidewalks or block paths of travel because the vehicles are
discarded in the middle of sidewalks or at other rights-of-way,
making it difficult for people with disabilities to safely traverse
the pathways.

Further, the SAC alleges that as usage and abandonment of these
vehicles and the speed at which they travel increases, the
Plaintiffs are denied safe, equal, and full access to the
sidewalks.  In their words, the vehicles' "burgeoning proliferation
and uncurbed growth comes at the detriment of the rights of all
disabled persons with mobility and/or visual impairments who are
residents and visitors of the City of San Diego, causing the
Plaintiffs injury, severe anxiety, diminishing their comfort and
discriminating against them based on their disabilities."  The
Plaintiffs direct allegations at the City regarding its
responsibilities as a municipality and the duty it has to maintain
the sidewalks.

On May 8, 2020, the City filed its answer to the SAC.

On Oct. 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave file a
third amended complaint.  The City opposed the motion, and the
Court denied the request.

On Oct. 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary
injunction.  The City filed its opposition, and the Plaintiffs
filed their reply.

The Plaintiffs contend that a preliminary injunction against the
City will protect their physical safety and prevent the irreparable
loss of dignity, independence, and deprivation of their civil
rights during the pendency of the action.  They assert that people
with mobility and visual impairments are being disproportionately
burdened and their independence impeded by the City's acquiescence
in allowing the public sidewalks to be turned into showrooms,
rental stores, and store locations for the dockless vehicle
companies.  The Plaintiffs argue that "due to the ubiquitous
presence of dockless vehicles, people with mobility and visual
impairments are denied equal access to and equal enjoyment of the
City's system of sidewalks, cross walks, transit stops and other
walkways."

In essence, the Plaintiffs are asking the Court for an order
prohibiting the City from permitting or authorizing dockless
vehicles to be present on public sidewalks, crosswalks, transit
stops, and other pedestrian walkways, or access ways anywhere
within the City and under the City's jurisdiction.

In opposition, the City counters that the Plaintiffs' failure to
seek the injunction for over two years belies their claims that
they now need urgent judicial intervention to avoid irreparable
harm.  It also contends that the Plaintiffs have neither
demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits nor that
they will be irreparably harmed.  It also argues that granting the
Plaintiffs motion will harm the public interest.  The City has also
filed a declaration from an accessibility expert, and a declaration
by a City of San Diego Investigator in support of its opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

Delay Undercut Claims

The City argues that the Plaintiffs' long delay in bringing this
motion "belies their claim of irreparable harm and urgent need for
judicial intervention."  The Plaintiffs counter that their delay in
filing for the injunction was justified, and that the delay should
not prevent the issuance of the injunction, especially in light of
the fact that they face "ongoing, cumulative harm."

Judge Miller holds that a review of the docket reveals that the SAC
was filed on April 15, 2020, 15 months after the original
complaint.  As to the consideration given to the Deputy City
Attorney's illness, this also occurred following the filing of the
SAC.  Therefore, he says, the justifications propounded by the
Plaintiffs do not account for the 15-month interval between when
they initiated the lawsuit and began settlement negotiations.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have consistently alleged that the
dockless vehicles have created hazards on the sidewalks,
crosswalks, transit stops and other walkways since the very
beginning.  Thus, the harm they have been exposed to has been
present since the outset.  The failure to seek injunctive relief
is, therefore, probative, appears to have been a tactical decision,
and implies a lack of urgency that the court must consider.
Accordingly, the Judge finds this factor weighs against the
Plaintiffs.

Immediate Irreparable Harm

The Plaintiffs assert they will suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of injunctive relief because they are deprived of their
ability to safely traverse the City's sidewalks and that they have
been stripped of their dignity and independence due to their
disabilities.  They also point to the recent proliferation in the
number of dockless vehicles to support their claim that an
injunction is necessary, arguing that this uptick increases the
chances that the sidewalks will once again become obstructed.  In
opposition, the City argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate imminent, irreparable harm.

While Judge Miller is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs, he holds that
they have described several frustrating, isolated inconveniences
that have impeded their paths of travel.  But all members of the
general public are subjected to the nuisance the presence of these
dockless vehicles on sidewalks pose when ridden by an individual
disregarding the user instructions and the traffic laws or when
carelessly abandoned by the user -- facts the Plaintiffs themselves
even acknowledge.  The City cannot guarantee that individuals with
disabilities will not encounter some impediments when they move
around on the sidewalks.  The realities of everyday life mean that
a "perfect" ADA accessible sidewalk does not exist in the
constantly changing variable that is city living.  It is not
practicable to expect that compliance can be achieved every second
of every day.

The Plaintiffs' position also ignores the efforts the City has
taken to address the influx of dockless vehicles into San Diego.
To be clear, the Judge is not suggesting that the City's solution
is perfect, it simply illustrates that the City has been working
toward finding a solution.  This fact mitigates against the court
imposing the drastic relief requested by the Plaintiff at this
stage of the proceedings.  Accordingly, the Judge finds this factor
weighs against the Plaintiffs.

Public Interest

The Plaintiffs maintain that preventing discrimination against
people with disabilities serves to uphold the purpose of the ADA
and that "a completely accessible walking city that is equally and
fully accessible to every person with disabilities is assuredly in
the public interest."  The City counters that issuing an injunction
would frustrate the will of San Diegans and the entire state of
California.  It also argues that enjoining it from enforcing the
municipal code would not resolve the Plaintiffs' complaints.

Judge Miller holds that in asking the Court to order that all
dockless vehicles be removed from the City limits while the lawsuit
proceeds, the Plaintiffs are asking for relief that goes beyond
maintaining the status quo, they are asking for the final relief
requested in the SAC.  The overbreadth of this request is evidenced
by the fact that it reaches non-parties and implicates issues of
broader public concern that could have public consequences.
Additionally, the California State legislature encourages the use
of the dockless vehicles in question and the people of San Diego
have also spoken on the issue.  The San Diego City Council has
enacted an ordinance allowing dockless vehicle companies to operate
within the San Diego City limits.  Accordingly, the Judge finds the
public interest is not served by granting the preliminary
injunction and that this factor weighs against the Plaintiffs.

Balance of Equities

The Plaintiffs assert that the balance in equities tips in their
favor.  They take the position that if the injunction is not
granted, people with disabilities who have mobility impairments
will be forced to choose between staying in their homes or risking
physical safety and mental anguish attempting to navigate the
highway obstacle course that public sidewalks have become.  If the
injunction is entered the only harm may be to the dockless vehicles
offerings being present on sidewalks throughout the City.

Judge Miller finds that if the injunction is not entered, the
Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm, they will suffer
potential inconveniences in the form of dockless vehicles left
intermittently on some of the sidewalks and crosswalks they
traverse.  Furthermore, in making their arguments, he says the
Plaintiffs ignore the measures the City has already taken to combat
the issues the presence of the dockless vehicles has created.
Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the balance of hardships does
not tip in the Plaintiffs favor.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Plaintiffs argue that the City has failed to fulfill its
responsibilities under the ADA and ensure that the sidewalks are
maintained to allow meaningful pedestrian access for those with
mobility and visual impairments.  The City counters that the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing they have a strong
likelihood or reasonable certainty that they will prevail on the
merits.

Judge Miller finds that on balance, the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate the law and facts to favor their position or establish
a likelihood of their success on the merits.  He is not convinced
that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will succeed in
showing that they have been denied meaningful access to the City's
sidewalks when it considers the 5,000 miles of sidewalk the City
has to maintain in relation to the number of their "documented
obstructions."  Accordingly, this favor weighs against the
Plaintiffs.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Miller denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/xz7x2py from Leagle.com.


SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Conti Suit Over Housing Market Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFIO CONTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GREATER SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., COMPASS SF I, INC., SOTHEBY'S
INTERNATIONAL REALTY, HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., RODEO REALTY,
INC., RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC., and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01934 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 19, 2021)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
conspiracy has substantially reduced competition in the market for
buyer agent services to the detriment of American home buyers.
Specifically, the Defendants' conspiracy enables brokers to raise,
fix, and maintain buyer agent compensation at artificially high
levels that would not exist in a competitive marketplace, which in
turn causes home buyers to pay higher prices. The conspiracy also
enables brokers to "steer" home buyers away from lower commission
homes, the suit says.

The Plaintiff and the other class members have each incurred at
least thousands of dollars in overcharges as a result of the
Defendants' conspiracy.

San Francisco Association of REALTORS is a professional association
serving over 4,000 members throughout San Francisco and the
surrounding areas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914‐2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914‐2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


SANDHU PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandhu Products, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Sandhu Products, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02602 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Sandhu Products -- https://www.sandhuproducts.com/ -- offers a wide
range of Herbal Dietary Supplements, Natural Health Products,
Organic Herbs and Teas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Time to Appeal Judgment in Anderson Passed
------------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that time to
appeal judgment in Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. suit has passed.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW.  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego.  

The complaint (as amended) alleged causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law
and California Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CCLRA).  

The complaint sought restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs. The case was dismissed and refiled in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification. The
case was prosecuted by certain plaintiffs for individual
restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief.  

The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the
plaintiffs' standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Before
the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all
claims against the Company.  

The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took
place in March of 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court ruled that
the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was
entered in favor of the Company.  

Plaintiffs have elected not to appeal this decision and the time to
do so has passed.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.

SENIOR RIDE: Paramedics Sue Time-Shaving & Rounding Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WASHINGTON and JOSEPH BOLANOS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class members v. SENIOR RIDE
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, SENIORCARE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES INC.,
and MICHAEL VATCH, Case No. 1:21-cv-01907 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime due to time-shaving,
unpaid wages and overtime due to rounding, compensation for late
payments of wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate an ambulance service business with
multiple offices providing transportation and related services for
hospitals or other medical facilities in New York State. The
Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members are
non-exempt employees worked for the Defendants as drivers,
emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics.

The Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members allege
that they were not compensated properly for all of the hours they
worked, including their overtime hours.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Sequential Brands Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.

Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG)

Class Period: November 3, 2016 to December 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021

On February 28, 2018, Sequential Brands Group issued a press
released entitled "Sequential Brands Group Announces Fourth Quarter
and Full Year 2017 Financial Results" which belatedly announced the
goodwill adjustment.

On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $6.80 per
share, or 8%, to close at $76.00 per share on February 28, 2018.

Then on December 11, 2020, the SEC filed a Complaint alleging that
the Company failed "to take into consideration clear, objective
evidence of likely goodwill impairment, which avoided and delayed a
material write down to goodwill in the fourth quarter of 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017 (the 'Relevant Period')."

On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $2.03 per
share, or 11%, to close at $16.20 per share on December 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, the Company knew
or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2) the
Company avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill in
late 2016 through 2017; (3) the Company understated its operating
expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income
from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017;
(4) the Company's internal controls were deficient; (5) the Company
has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties,
deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control
violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Sequential Brands class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SQBG

                      About Bragar Eagel

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

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

SERENE TEFFAHA: Under Investigation by Board Over COVID Lockdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer who has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Victorian
government on behalf of public housing tower residents who were
shut inside their homes during Melbourne's 2020 Covid lockdown is
under investigation by the state's legal services board.

The Melbourne-based lawyer, Serene Teffaha, who during the pandemic
has appeared at anti-lockdown rallies and on YouTube with
conspiracists such as the former celebrity chef Pete Evans, filed a
class-action lawsuit in Victoria's supreme court on behalf of the
residents.

But the Guardian has confirmed Teffaha is the subject of an
investigation by the Victorian Legal Services Board, the body
charged with regulating the legal profession in the state.

While a spokesman for the VLSB said it did not comment on current
investigations, in posts made on social media and in an interview
with the Guardian, Teffaha claimed the authority had "threatened to
cancel" her.

Queensland premier urges PM to halve international arrivals as
state records one new Covid case

Teffaha was reportedly referred to Queensland's legal services
board last month by a magistrate after submissions she made in a
case in that state.

According to a report in the Queensland Times, magistrate Anthony
Gett referred her to that state's Legal Services Commission over
submissions in court that he said "may be prejudicial to or
diminish the public confidence in the administration of justice".

Teffaha had reportedly said a child taken by an alleged
child-stealing syndicate had been "let down" by the police and
judiciary and the court was "enabling" his abuse.

She told the Guardian that the complaint had been "transferred" to
the VLSB, which had sent her correspondence "basically saying we're
going to cancel your licence".

But while the initial referral appeared to relate to her comments
in Queensland, the Guardian understands the VLSB may also be
inquiring into the class actions she has raised money for
throughout the pandemic.

Besides the estate towers class action, Teffaha has for months been
raising money for a separate "national" class action lawsuit that
would, she claims, encompass "any form of detention" during the
pandemic including people stopped by border closures.

The broad-brush suite includes a swathe of other Covid-19 measures
such as contact tracing, so-called "mandatory" vaccinations,
mask-wearing mandates, "inappropriate requirements to undergo
medical examinations" without "full and informed consent" and what
she calls "inappropriate classification of cause of death as
Covid-19".

While the Guardian has not sighted the correspondence from the
VLSB, Teffaha said she planned to release more information. She
said the authority had sent her "a list of one million and one
questions" including over the class action lawsuits.

"They want the details of all my clients, they want to know what my
barristers think of the cases, they're trying to speak on behalf of
all my clients when not a single one of them has made a complaint
against me," she told the Guardian.

"I will be revealing everything and I will be defending myself.
There is way too much corruption in this country."

Teffaha's rhetoric during the pandemic helped to make her a cause
celebre among the anti-lockdown activists who have emerged during
the pandemic.

She claims to have raised in excess of $650,000 to run the
broad-brush class action, which she says is being held in a trust
account that she "hasn't touched", and told the Guardian she had
"more than 5,000" people signed up as part of the still-unfiled
lawsuit.

But she has also flirted with the conspiracy-minded elements of the
movement. The Age reported in January that Teffaha had appeared at
an anti-lockdown protest in Broadmeadows in which she described
bureaucrats as "liars", judges as "corrupt" and the Australian
Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) as "the most
terrorist organisation".

"We will keep calling them all out until there's a revolution on
the streets and if we need to shed blood for peace, then so be it,"
Teffaha said at the protest, which she later clarified was not
meant to be taken literally.

In August last year, she also appeared on a YouTube discussion with
a number of high-profile Australian conspiracy theorists including
Evans and the anti-5G activist Matt Lawson who has also attempted
to distribute vaccine misinformation to aged-care homes during the
pandemic. Teffaha has previously told the Guardian that her
participation in the discussion did not amount to an endorsement of
the views of people such as Evans, saying her concern was her
clients.

The towers lawsuit lodged in the supreme court alleges the more
than 3,000 residents in nine public housing towers subject to a
five-day lockdown in July last year suffered "degrading" and
"oppressive" conditions that breached their human rights.

It alleges the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Idris Hassan, and his
family were not given food for three days and survived on "nuts and
beans" after they ran out of supplies. It also alleges Hassan and
his son both suffered from asthma attacks after they ran out of
medication during the lockdown.

Teffaha told the Guardian there were currently only "about seven"
people signed onto the lawsuit, but that "hundreds" had expressed
interest in joining.

"At the moment we're also trying to notify the residents about the
class action, but we will have a lot more who will join up, we just
have to raise awareness that it is happening," she said.

The lawsuit lists Victoria's deputy chief health officer, Annaliese
van Diemen, deputy public health commander, Finn Romanes, police
commissioner, Shane Patton, and the state of Victoria as
defendants. [GN]

SONY ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective a7 III Camera Shutters
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sony has been hit with a class-action lawsuit by a consumer who
claims that the popular Sony a7 III has shutter defects that brick
the camera and force owners to pay for expensive repairs.

Law Street Media reports that the plaintiff, a man named John
Guerriero, filed the class-action complaint in the Southern
District of New York against Sony Electronics Inc.

Guerriero calls Sony "the vanguard of the mirrorless camera
movement because they're the most accessible full-frame system[s]
on the market" before accusing the company of denying warranty
claims made by camera owners who experienced "mechanical problems"
with the a7 III's shutter.

"The a7iii is smaller, lighter, and more durable than its DSLR
counterpart, which contributes to its higher cost - approximately
$2,000.00," the lawsuit reads. "Unfortunately for many purchasers
of the a7 III, mechanical problems with the shutter have rendered
the cameras unusable provided they do not pay over $500 for repair
to an authorized service center."

Sony states that the a7 III is rated for 200,000 shutter
actuations, but according to the lawsuit, many owners have reported
shutter failures occurring far before reaching that 200,000
actuation mark.

"Numerous users report shutter failures far below 200,000 but
between 10,000 and 50,000 for most of the users who experienced
this," the complaint states. "While the a7iii is generally sold
with a one-year warranty, shutter failure occurs randomly, often
outside of the warranty period."

"The result is that purchasers must pay approximately $500-$650 for
repair and replacement of the shutter mechanism."

The lawsuit also claims that because the camera's shutter failure
happens in such a predictable way, it's due to a mechanical flaw in
the design.

"The shutter failure manifests in a consistent way," the filing
states. "Prior to shutter failure, users report hearing an atypical
shutter sound, followed by the screen turning black and displaying
the following message: 'Camera Error. Turn off then on.' [. . . ]

"When a user removes the lens, the shutter is closed and stuck. In
most instances, the shutter has become detached, as shown through
the numerous a7 III users who shared pictures of their broken
shutters on the internet."

There are various theories out there as to what is causing this
particular kind of shutter failure.

"These include the observation that the shutter blade catches on
the front edge as it moves down in taking a picture," the lawsuit
says. "This is because the blades are positioned farther forward,
so they 'catch' and fail to fully clear.

"Moreover, the front curtain shutter material is of limited
strength, causing it to break. Additionally, the shutter is
unusually susceptible to disruption by small particles, even dust,
which can cause the blades out of alignment."

Some Sony a7 III users are said to be turning electronic front
curtain shutter (EFCS) off in hopes of avoiding this failure, but
this increases shutter noise and is less-than-optimal for
photographers who purchased their a7 III for quiet shooting - at
weddings, for example.

Others who experienced this failure have attempted do-it-yourself
fixes that can lead to warranty claims being denied.

Guerriero is now suing Sony on behalf of "all citizens of New York
who purchased the a7iii cameras," and among the things he's seeking
from the court are an injunction, an award for damages/costs/fees,
and other relief. [GN]

SQUARE GROVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Square Grove LLC. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Square Grove LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02570 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Square Grove LLC -- https://www.squaregrove.com/ -- was founded in
2002. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
household furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAKE CENTER: Walker Files FLSA Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stake Center
Locating. The case is styled as Dustin Walker, individually and for
Others Similarly Situated v. Stake Center Locating, Case No.
2:21-cv-00183-JCB (D. Utah, March 25, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Stake Center Locating, Inc. -- https://www.stakecenter.com/ --
provides utility locating services. The Company offers wired and
wireless, electric, and gas construction, as well as professional,
site development, and underground utility locating services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Paige Benjamin, Esq.
          PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC
          470 N University Ave., Ste. 100
          PO Box 1464
          Provo, UT 84603
          Phone: (801) 822-9210
          Email: paigebenjamin@mac.com


STANDARD CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Candy
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Standard Candy
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02611 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Standard Candy Company, Inc., best known for its Goo Goo Cluster
candy bar -- https://googoo.com/ -- manufactures and distributes
candy bars. The Company produces chews, fudges, creams, frappes,
nougats, cereal rolls, layered bars, and other products.[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


SUPER7 RETAIL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super7 Retail, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Super7 Retail, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02603 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Super7 -- https://super7.com/ -- is the producer of
lifestyle-oriented collectibles, toys and apparel based in San
Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAFFY TOWN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taffy Town, Inc. The
case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Taffy Town, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02612 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Taffy Town -- https://www.taffytown.com/ -- is a gourmet Salt Water
Taffy manufacturer located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[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


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Holbrook Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID HOLBROOK, Plaintiff v. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:20CV00025 (W.D. Va.),
Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Abingdon Division, granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.

The proposed class action concerns electricity rates charged by the
Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA").  TVA is the nation's largest
public power provider.  It was formed during the Great Depression
at a time when most rural American households could not access
electricity.  Currently, TVA sells electricity directly to about 60
large industrial customers and to 154 local power companies, who in
turn distribute the electricity to industrial, commercial, and
residential customers in the southeastern United States.

Beginning in 2010, through its Strategic Pricing Plan, TVA adopted
a series of rate changes that were intended to be revenue neutral.
Its purpose in adopting these rate changes was to further its
stated objective that revenue collected from each customer class
should be proportional to the costs associated with that customer
class.  One of TVA's goals was to make its industrial rates more
competitive.

In 2010, TVA implemented a rate change that sought to adjust
pricing based on the time of year electricity was used.  By 2013,
domestic customers were paying approximately 10% more than they had
in 2010, while industrial customers were paying approximately 10%
less.  In 2013, TVA gave industrial customers a rate reduction for
two years.  As a result, TVA achieved an industry-wide ranking for
industrial rates that was better than TVA's industry-wide ranking
for domestic consumer rates.

By 2015, the TVA's industrial rates were more competitive than its
domestic rates, according to the TVA's own analysis.  TVA then
instituted another manufacturing credit and made other rate
changes.  As a result, the rates TVA charged to industrial
consumers were reduced by 6.4% on average, and direct-serve
industrial consumer rates were decreased by 9%, while the rates TVA
charged to domestic consumers increased by 1.1%.  By 2016, the
TVA's rate changes had shifted approximately $439 million in rates
per annum from domestic consumers to industry. Changes subsequent
to 2016 increased the shift in rates.

TVA adopted additional revenue-neutral rate changes in 2018.  It
reduced rates for large general service customers and increased
rates for other customers, including domestic consumers.  TVA also
reduced wholesale energy rates for all users and instituted a Grid
Access Charge.  The change benefitted industrial users to the
detriment of domestic users.

TVA enters into standard form contracts with its distributors, one
of which is defendant BVU Authority ("BVU").  Expressly
incorporated into these contracts is the statutory directive that
sale of electricity to industry should be used primarily to ensure
the provision of electricity to domestic consumers at the lowest
possible rates.  TVA sets the resale rates that distributors like
BVU charge their customers.  Different classes of customers --
industrial users, commercial users, and domestic users -- are
charged different rates, but all customers within a user class are
charged the same rate.  Local power companies and TVA can attempt
to agree on changes to rates and charges, but if they are unable to
reach agreement, TVA is empowered to change rates unilaterally.

Plaintiff Holbrook is a customer of BVU.  He alleges that he has
paid higher rates for electricity than he would have paid had TVA
not implemented the aforementioned rate changes, which he contends
violate the TVA Act's directive that rates should be set to ensure
the lowest possible rates for domestic consumers.  He brings the
action on behalf of a class of TVA residential customers and a
subclass of BVU residential customers who received electricity
pursuant to a contract between TVA and BVU.

Count One of the Amended Class Action Complaint asserts a breach of
contract claim against both Defendants.  Holbrook avers that he is
an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between TVA and
BVU.  He claims that TVA and BVU have violated the "lowest possible
rates" provision contained in the contract.

Count Two claims that TVA has violated the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 702, by acting arbitrarily and capriciously
in setting rates that were not the lowest possible rates for
domestic consumers of energy. He contends that TVA's rate changes
exceeded TVA's statutory jurisdiction and authority.

Count Three is a claim of unlawful exaction. Here, Holbrook alleges
that TVA caused him to pay rates that exceeded the amount that
could lawfully be charged under the TVA Act.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.  They contend that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims because TVA's rate-setting
decisions are judicially unreviewable due to the broad discretion
the TVA Act grants to TVA.  They further argue that even if the
Court had jurisdiction, Holbrook's claims are barred by the statute
of limitations, and he has failed to state viable claims of breach
of contract, violation of the APA, or exaction.

Based on the environmental assessments, responses to public
comments, and other documents attached to the Amended Complaint,
Judge Jones finds that TVA appears to have concluded that reducing
rates for industry would encourage a sufficiently high load factor
as well as a more consistent demand for electricity, and perhaps
greater overall use by industry.  This would, in TVA's estimation,
satisfy the statutory objective that power will be sold at rates as
low as are feasible.  TVA could reasonably have decided that
reducing industry rates would have the ultimate effect of lowering
electricity bills for all users, including rural and domestic
users.

Judge Jones holds that it is unnecessary at this junction to delve
into the weeds of TVA's thought processes.  He says the statute
simply does not say what the Plaintiff suggests it says.  A review
of Section 831j and the TVA Act as a whole reveals that TVA is
tasked with balancing a number of objectives that are not cabined
by clear criteria.  This is the essence of commitment to agency
discretion by law.  There is no law the Court could apply to
determine whether TVA has complied with Section 831j.
Determinations about the level of rates necessary to recover the
various costs of operating TVA's power system, as well as the terms
and conditions of TVA's power contracts, are part of TVA's
unreviewable rate-making responsibilities.

The Judge holds that Holbrook cannot escape dismissal of the case
by rebranding his claims under different legal theories.  The Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all three counts of the
Amended Class Action Complaint, including the Plaintiff's claims of
breach of contract and exaction, because they all seek review of
TVA's discretionary rate-making decisions.  The statute ensures
that Holbrook's only remedy is a legislative one.  Because the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims, the case must
be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Jones granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss.  He denied as moot the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial
Notice because the Court considered the referenced statements as
true in accord with the applicable standard of review.  A separate
Final Order of Dismissal will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6t5by97s from Leagle.com.

Martin Bienstock -- MBienstock@BienstockPLLC.com -- BIENSTOCK,
PLLC, in Washington, D.C., and Mark T. Hurt Abingdon, Virginia, for
Plaintiff.

Maria V. Gillen, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, in Knoxville, Tennessee, for Defendant Tennessee Valley
Authority; Cameron S. Bell -- cbell@pennstuart.com -- PENN, STUART
& ESKRIDGE, in Abingdon, Virginia, for Defendant BVU Authority.


TEXAS: Appeals Court Panel Rejects Inmates' COVID-19 Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court struck down a
lawsuit brought by elderly inmates of a Texas prison who alleged
the state did not implement adequate measures to shield them from
COVID-19.

Two male inmates of the Wallace Pack Unit near Houston filed a
class-action lawsuit alleging that the conditions there violated
their constitutional rights by endangering their health and
safety.

A federal judge in Houston had agreed and ordered the state to
equip inmates with protective equipment. Last June, the appeals
court panel overturned the order, saying the state was in
substantial compliance. The three-judge appeals court panel ruled
in favor of the state.

Brandon Duke, one of the inmates' attorneys, said the decision was
disappointing, "but we do agree with the court that the suit, as
stated in the opinion, 'played a role in motivating the prison
officials into action and saved countless lives.' That was the
ultimate goal of the case."

It's unclear whether further appeals are planned. [GN]

THANG HOLT: Sundermann Sues Over Unsolicited ATDS-Generated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL SUNDERMANN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THANG HOLT d/b/a KELLER WILIAMS REALTY OF
GREATER DES MOINES HOMES TEAM, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00083-RGE-CFB (S.D. Iowa, March 15, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's employee, Ryan Rohlf,
made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular
telephone numbers that has been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry, including the Plaintiff. Allegedly, telemarketing is one
of the Defendant's strategies for marketing its services and
generating new customers by using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS).

On October 10, 2018 and on March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff received
numerous marketing calls to his cellular phone (515) 867-**** that
has been added to NDNC Registry on November 3, 2014. The Plaintiff
asserts that he never provided the Defendant his prior express
consent to receive ATDS-generated or prerecorded calls. Because of
the Defendant's calls, his privacy has been violated and he was
annoyed and harassed, he contends.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals who has received unsolicited
ATDS-generated or pre-recorded calls from the Defendant. The
Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from
making telemarketing calls to any cellular telephone numbers, as
well as damages and other relief as the Court deems necessary,
just, and proper.

Thang Holt is a real estate broker in the business of representing
buyers and sellers in real estate transactions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Hansen, Esq.
          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Tel: (414) 455-7676
          Fax: (414) 273-8476
          E-mail: thansen@hansenreynolds.com
                  mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

                - and –

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


TICKETSONSALE.COM LLC: Shankula Sues Over Denied Refund Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SHANKULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETSONSALE.COM, LLC, TICKET FULFILLMENT
SERVICES LP, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00515-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's
refund request for the tickets that he purchased online to a live
performance by Hillsong Worship at the Cal Coast Credit Union Open
Air Theatre at San Diego State University following California
government orders to cancel public events in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants denied the request on that
grounds that their policy is to issue refunds only for officially
cancelled events. However, the indefinite postponement of the event
for which the Plaintiff purchased tickets is the equivalent of
cancellation. The Defendants' failure to honor contractual
obligation and refund the purchase price of tickets for effectively
cancelled events has deprived the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers of the benefit of their bargains, added the suit.

Ticketsonsale.com, LLC is an online secondary ticket reseller.

Ticket Fulfillment Services LP is an online secondary ticket
reseller with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
         St. George, Utah 84790
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

TRACE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Gouldie Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GOULDIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRACE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00088-TES (M.D. Ga., March 15, 2021) brings this
collection action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a recruiter from
approximately 2016 until October 2018.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated recruiters on a salary basis, but
misclassified them as exempt from overtime. Although they regularly
worked more than 40 hours each week, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the law, added the suit.

Trace Staffing is an employment and staffing company operating
throughout the U.S., including Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Tel: (770) 427-5600
          Fax: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com


TRICIDA INC: Facing Pardi Putative Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tricida, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative securities class action suit entitled, Pardi v. Tricida,
Inc., et al., 21-cv-00076.

On January 6, 2021, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and its CEO and CFO. Pardi v. Tricida, Inc., et
al., 21-cv-00076.

The Securities Class Action complaint alleges that during the
period September 4, 2019 through October 28, 2020, the Company and
its senior officers violated the federal securities laws, including
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, through alleged public
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts concerning
the Company's new drug application (NDA) for veverimer and the
likelihood and timing of approval of veverimer by the FDA. No
damages amount is specified in the Securities Class Action.

On February 15, 2021, a derivative action was filed in the District
of Delaware, brought by and on behalf of Tricida, Inc. as a Nominal
Defendant, against the Company's directors as well as its CEO and
CFO. Ricks v. Alpern et al., Case No, 1:21-cv-000205.

The Derivative Case is based on the allegations of the Securities
Class Action and asserts that by allowing the Company and senior
executives to make the allegedly false and misleading statements at
issue in the Securities Class Action, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets.

Additionally, the complaint asserts claims against the senior
officers for violation of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. No damages amount is specified in the
Derivative Case.

Tricida said, "At this time, the Company has not provided for a
loss contingency in its financial statements relating to the
Securities Class Action and the Derivative Case since it is not
probable that a loss has been incurred."

Tricida, Inc. operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company. The Company
focuses on the discovery and clinical development of novel
therapeutics to address renal, metabolic, and cardiovascular
diseases. Tricida serves patients in the United States. The company
is based in South San Francisco, California.

TS TECH USA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DELA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TS TECH USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01147-EAS-EPD (N.D. Ohio, March 16, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing
employee between about April 9, 2003 through about January 18, 2021
at the Defendant's manufacturing facility located in Reynoldsburg,
Ohio.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt
employees and paid on an hourly basis. Although they frequently
worked over 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not compensate
them for all hours they worked, including all of the overtime at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Specifically, the
Defendant required them to perform work duties, which are integral
and indispensable part of their principal activities, without being
compensated that is amounted to approximately 20 t 30 minutes per
day, added the Plaintiff.

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

TS Tech USA Corporation is a global supplier of automobile seats
and interiors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8 N. Court St., Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Tel: (847) 986-5889
          Fax: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com


UKG INC: W.D. Washington Denies Bid to Dismiss/Transfer REI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Plaintiff v. UKG, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C21-0107JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, denies UKG's motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in
the alternative, to transfer venue.

REI is a Washington corporation with its principle place of
business in Kent, Washington.  UKG is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Weston, Florida.  The case
arises out of UKG's alleged breach of a contract to provide REI
with software, services, and Software as a Service ("SaaS")
services related to payroll administration.  REI alleges that UKG's
breach resulted in damages in the form of a settlement payment and
associated legal fees for an underlying lawsuit in California,
where the Plaintiffs alleged REI violated California labor laws.

REI's contract with UKG was a result of a strategic sourcing
process run out of REI's headquarters in Kent, Washington.  The
alleged contract was executed on Sept. 30, 2016.  Over the course
of 2017, a UKG analyst worked with REI personnel at its
headquarters in Kent to implement UKG's UltiPro payroll and human
resources system.  On Jan. 1, 2018, REI transferred its payroll
processes to UKG's systems.

On Oct. 31, 2018, Martha Reilly, an REI employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against REI in the California Superior Court of
Alameda County, claiming it had violated the California Labor Code
by, among other things, providing inaccurate wage statements.  REI
subsequently removed the lawsuit to federal court in the Northern
District of California.

On Sept. 30, 2019, REI provided written notice and tender to UKG of
REI's claim for damages related to Ms. Reilly's suit.  On Oct. 16,
2019, REI invited UKG to participate in a mediation with Ms. Reilly
in Los Angeles, California.  UKG refused this invitation.  After
the mediation, REI reached an agreement with Ms. Reilly for a
class-wide settlement in which REI agreed to pay $5 million.

On Dec. 16, 2019, REI notified UKG of the settlement and demanded
that UKG pay $5,413,036.74, which included the settlement payment
and REI's defense costs and attorney's fees.  UKG refused to pay.
On Aug. 6, 2020, the district court in the Northern District of
California finally approved REI's class settlement agreement, and
on Sept. 4, 2020, REI fully funded the settlement.

REI filed its amended complaint in the Superior Court for King
County, Washington on Dec. 29, 2020.  REI brings claims against UKG
for breach of contract, implied indemnity, negligent
misrepresentation, and equitable indemnity.  According to REI, to
the extent Ms. Reilly succeeded on her Wage Statement Claim in the
underlying Lawsuit, UKG breached REI and UKG's contract by failing
to design and issue accurate wage statements to REI non-exempt
employees in California in compliance with California Labor Code.
On Jan. 28, 2021, UKG removed the case to federal court.

On Feb. 4, 2021, UKG filed the instant motion to dismiss for
improper venue or, in the alternative, transfer venue.  REI filed
its response on March 1, 2021.  On reply, UKG concedes that the
Court has jurisdiction and venue over the matter but nonetheless
requests that it transfers the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

UKG concedes that its motion to dismiss is not well founded and
that venue is proper.  Therefore, Judge Robart construes UKG's
motion as one to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instructs district courts to
apply a nine-factor balancing test to determine whether to transfer
a case under Section 1404(a).  The balancing test weighs: "(1) the
location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and
executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing
law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective
parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the
plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the
differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the
availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of
unwilling non-party witnesses, (8) the ease of access to sources of
proof," and (9) the public policy considerations of the forum
state.

Judge Robart concludes that UKG has carried its burden to establish
that the Northern District of California is a suitable alternative
forum for this dispute. Venue is proper in "a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred."  The underlying lawsuit and settlement that
form at least part of the basis for REI's breach of contract and
indemnification claims occurred in the Northern District of
California.  This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of
28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).

UKG concedes that two of the nine factors weigh in favor of venue
remaining with the Court: The location where the agreement was
executed by REI and REI's choice of forum.  However, it contends
that all other factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Norther
District of California.

Judge Robart disagrees and concludes that the remaining factors
either suggest venue should remain in the Western District of
Washington or weigh in neither party's favor. He holds that (i)
while UKG contends that the underlying case was based on alleged
violations of the California Labor Code, it is at heart a breach of
contract case regarding a contract that is governed by Washington
law; (ii) UKG offers no arguments that it has more contacts with
California than Washington; (iii) the costs of litigation,
availability of compulsory process, and ease of access to sources
of proof factors are neutral, and (iv) UKG offers no arguments
regarding the final factor -- public policy considerations.

Thus, the Judge determines that none of the nine Jones factors
weigh in favor of transfer, while at least four suggest that venue
should remain in the Western District of Washington.  UKG's motion
to transfer is accordingly denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart denies UKG's motion to
dismiss or transfer venue.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/svaz97z9 from Leagle.com.


ULTA BEAUTY: Katavitch Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT KATAVITCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY INC., Case No. 2021-344,
was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Franklin
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on March 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00540-CCC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and the common law of Pennsylvania.

Ulta Beauty Inc. is an American chain of beauty stores
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Brandon R. Sher, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 995-2840
         Facsimile: (215) 995-2801
         E-mail: brandon.sher@ogletree.com

UNISEA INC: Ohring Seeks Seafood Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMICHAI OHRING, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNISEA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00359 (W.D. Wash.,
March 16, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a seafood processor
from 2020 until the present.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied her and other
similarly situated seafood processors compensation for the time
they spent donning and doffing gear prior to clocking in or after
clocking out that was integral and indispensable part of their
principal activities. Despite regularly working in excess of 40
hours per week, the Plaintiff and other seafood processors were not
properly paid overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the
Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and liquidated damages for her and
other similarly situated seafood processors, as well as pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Unisea, Inc. produces an impressive variety of finished seafood
products that are distributed throughout the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Henry Avery, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: (206) 223-2053
          Fax: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                  havery@zsz.com


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discusses Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hamilton and Harriet Ryan at Latin Times reports that the
$1.1-billion payout to former patients of USC gynecologist George
Tyndall, who was accused harassing and assaulting a generation of
female students, ranks as the largest sexual abuse settlement in
American higher education.

USC has made a series of legal settlements with former patients of
Tyndall, and the largest of those -- for $852 million -- was
announced.

This settlement far exceeds the scale and cost of other sex abuse
scandals, including those that roiled the Archdiocese of L.A.,
Michigan State University and Penn State, and will result in
hundreds of women receiving money from their alma mater.

Here are the basic facts:

                         The Settlements

A final group of 710 women suing the university in Los Angeles
Superior Court settled their claims for $852 million.
USC previously agreed to pay thousands of other alumnae and
students $215 million in 2018 as part of a class action settlement
reached in federal court. USC also agreed to pay up to $25 million
in legal fees in this case, putting the total cost at about $240
million.

Women who were part of settlement in state court had to explicitly
opt out of the 2018 federal class action settlement.
A group of about 50 other women with individual state court cases
were previously settled for an amount that has not been made
public.

                     Years of Legal Battles

The sole full-time gynecologist at the student health clinic from
1989 until 2016, Tyndall was accused of preying on a generation of
USC women.

After The Times exposed the years of misconduct accusations against
Tyndall in 2018, USC was sued by hundreds of former female students
who accused the gynecologist of sexual harassment, inappropriate
touching, assault and sex abuse.

The university hired at least three top law firms to defend against
the former patients' lawsuits in federal court, including Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher and Fraser Watson Crouch. The cost of USC's legal
defense is separate from the settlements and ran into the tens of
millions of dollars, according to the university's general
counsel.

From 2018 until this spring, USC's lawyers have repeatedly sparred
with lawyers representing the hundreds of former Tyndall patients.
The women's attorneys had dozens of USC administrators and
employees sit for questioning under oath, including former provost
Michael Quick, former general counsel Todd Dickey and nurses and
student clinic staff.

Tyndall was also questioned under oath but he repeatedly invoked
his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Tyndall has
been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault by Los Angeles
County prosecutors and is awaiting trial.

Former USC President C.L. Max Nikias was scheduled to be questioned
during a deposition this winter, but it was postponed amid
settlement negotiations and ultimately never took place.

                         The Payouts

The 710 women who were part of the settlement will receive an
average payment of $1.2 million, although the exact distribution of
the money was expected to vary by individual allegations and
ultimately be determined by a retired judge in coming months.
Lawyers for the women expected some would receive in the middle to
low six figures, while other women could receive more than $2
million, depending on the severity of their claims.

USC will pay the settlement over two years. The first payment will
be in August 2021, and the second will occur in August 2022.

To pay for the enormous cost, USC will rely on insurance proceeds,
litigation reserves, the deferment of capital projects, the sale of
some "nonessential assets" and cuts to discretionary spending like
travel and entertainment.

No philanthropic gifts, endowments funds, or tuition will be used
in the settlement, according to USC.

The thousands of former patients who are part of the class action
settlement have already received a minimum payment of $2,500. Some
patients were eligible for higher awards -- up to $250,000 --
depending on what they experienced. Those former patients have
begun this month to receive notice of how much they were awarded.
[GN]

USG CORP: Stockholder's Bid to File 2nd Amended Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit titled In re USG
Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2018-0602-SG (Del.
Ch.).

Judge Glasscock notes that the Motion comes to him in oddly
circuitous fashion. The parties have already fully briefed and
argued a motion to dismiss. He granted that motion in its entirety
in a memorandum opinion on August 31, 2020. In the Memorandum
Opinion, Judge Glasscock found that the Plaintiffs had (via a
sufficient allegation that disclosures in way of a stockholder vote
were inadequate) shown that Corwin cleansing did not apply (Corwin
v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015)).

Nonetheless, Judge Glasscock found that the Plaintiffs had also
failed to "plead facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the
Defendants" acted in bad faith or in breach of the duty of loyalty,
and that the Motion to Dismiss must be granted. In the Memorandum
Opinion, Judge Glasscock asked the parties to submit an appropriate
form of order consistent with his findings in the opinion.

Before that could occur, however, the Plaintiffs moved to reargue,
positing that Judge Glasscock had "overlooked the fact that one
Defendant, Jennifer Scanlon, was an officer as well as a director
of USG, and that, in her officer role, she was not exculpated from
damages for a violation of a duty of care in relation to a
disclosure to stockholders." Judge Glasscock denied that motion as
well via a letter opinion (the "Letter Decision"), on the grounds
that it does not appear that the Complaint alleges Ms. Scanlon, as
a corporate officer, was grossly negligent in the dissemination of
disclosures. To the extent that, given the Plaintiff-friendly
pleading standard on this Motion to Dismiss, it may be so read, the
Plaintiffs failed to brief the issue in response to the Motion
sufficiently to consider it raised, and failed to raise it at oral
argument as well, Judge Glasscock opines. The claim, accordingly,
was waived.

After the Letter Decision was issued, the Defendants submitted a
proposed order implementing the Memorandum Opinion. The Plaintiffs
did not stipulate to the proposed order, and indicated that they
intended to seek leave to file an amended complaint. The Motion was
filed two days later, on December 11, 2020, and was fully briefed
by December 21, 2020.

However, on January 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of Judge Glasscock's decision granting the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, despite there being no final order (or request
to certify interlocutory appeal) in the case. In any event, in
light of the appeal, Judge Glasscock stayed this action--including
the fully briefed Motion--until resolution of the appeal.

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the appeal. The parties
have informed me that the Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint is fully submitted for adjudication.

Court of Chancery Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend its
pleadings "once as a matter of course" before a responsive pleading
is served; "otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only
by leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party; and
leave will be freely given when justice so requires." Rule 15(aaa),
however, forms an exception to that general and liberal rule; it
provides a more stringent standard when a motion to dismiss has
been submitted before a motion to amend is made.

Judge Glasscock notes that the purpose of Rule 15(aaa) was to
curtail the number of times that the Court of Chancery was required
to adjudicate multiple motions to dismiss the same action. He adds
that Rule 15(aaa) was written precisely for situations, such as the
one here, in which the parties have fully briefed and argued a
motion to dismiss and the court has decided it.

The Plaintiffs, nevertheless, argue that Rule 15(a), rather than
Rule 15(aaa), should apply here. In support, they cite TVI Corp. v.
Gallagher. In TVI, the Court treated a motion to amend made during
the pendency of a motion to dismiss "as if it had been submitted
after the disposition of the Motion to Dismiss," and proceeded to
grant the motion to amend.

Judge Glasscock holds that the holding in TVI is that Rule 15(aaa)
is not applicable to an amendment that states a new claim not
addressed in a motion to dismiss.

The revised pleading proposed here would not state a claim outside
"the purview of the motion to dismiss," Judge Glasscock opines. The
claim that Defendant Scanlon breached her fiduciary duty of
care--the claim that the Plaintiffs seek to reform and perfect in
the proposed amended pleading--was subject to the Motion to
Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss sought dismissal of the entire
Amended Complaint--which, in turn, included only one count: a
breach of "fiduciary duties" against all the Defendants. By
definition, a breach of Scanlon's duty of care would fall within
that count, the dismissal of which was sought in the Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, the TVI exception does not apply here, Judge
Glasscock adds.

The Plaintiffs, with their Motion, seek to amend their Amended
Complaint to perfect a claim that they had "attempted" to make,
after the Court decided that the claim was insufficiently alleged.
Judge Glasscock holds that this is not a case where a new and
unique claim is being raised against the Defendants. Rather, the
parties went through full briefing and argument, yet the Plaintiffs
did not once identify any additional allegations that might bolster
their claim, the Judge opines, citing Mooney v. E. I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co., 2017 WL 5713308, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 28,
2017), aff'd, 192 A.3d 557 (Del. 2018).

Judge Glasscock finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations in their
complaint are insufficient to state a claim against Scanlon. They
fail to allege that the Company's incomplete and misleading
disclosures--issuance of which is the sole breach of care that the
Plaintiffs articulate--are the result of Scanlon's gross
negligence--a point Judge Glasscock articulated in his Letter
Decision. He adds that the Plaintiffs' allegations merely allege
that the proxy in question was insufficient and conclude that it
may be Scanlon's fault. Although the standard at a motion to
dismiss is plaintiff-friendly, it does not require the Court to
accept the plaintiff's conclusory allegations.

Finally, as noted in the Letter Decision, even if the
plaintiff-friendly motion to dismiss standard may be read to allow
an inference that Scanlon was grossly negligent in causing the
corporation to issue the incomplete and misleading proxy, "the
Plaintiffs failed to brief the issue in response to the Motion
sufficiently to consider it raised, and failed to raise it at oral
argument as well," Judge Glasscock holds. Indeed, the Plaintiffs
raised the duty of care allegation with regards to Scanlon (if at
all) only in a footnote of their motion to dismiss briefing that
stated: "Section 102(b)(7) does not exculpate officers in their
capacity as officers, such that exculpation is not available to
Scanlon." True, but unhelpful to the Plaintiffs. The footnote does
not provide any argument as to how the factual allegations support
gross negligence on Scanlon's part with respect to the disclosures,
or how such gross negligence caused the harm to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs in their original pleading attempted and failed to
plead breach of fiduciary duty against Scanlon. Rule 15(aaa)
precludes a second such attempt here. Application of that rule does
not work an injustice "under all the circumstances," Judge
Glasscock further opines.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 11, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ujwt64z3 from Leagle.com.


VELODYNE LIDAR: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (VLDR)
Class Period: 7/2/2020 - 3/17/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                       About ClaimsFiler

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

VROOM INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 21, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VRM) securities between November 11, 2020 and March 3, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press
release. Therein, the Company reported that fourth quarter
"Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878,
driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by
improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per
unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et
loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or
27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to
control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the
demand for its products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail
channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) that, as a
result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely
to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vroom securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 21, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

VROOM INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with
losses in excess of $100,000 that they have until May 21, 2021 to
file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action
lawsuit against Vroom, Inc. (NasdaqGS: VRM), if they purchased the
Company's securities between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Vroom 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-vrm/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 21, 2021.

                            About the Lawsuit

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

On March 3, 2021, post-market, the Company announced its Q4 and
Full Year 2020 financial results, disclosing that fourth quarter
"Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878,
driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by
improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per
unit" as well as a fourth quarter increase in net loss from 41.9%
to $60.7 million.

On this news, shares of Vroom plummeted $12.29 per share, or 27.9%,
to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The case is Zawatsky v. Vroom, Inc., et al., 21-cv-02477.

                       About Kahn Swick & Foti

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

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]

VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 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 Southern District of New York against
Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ:  VRM) ("Vroom") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Vroom securities between June 9, 2020 and
March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder:  Investors who purchased or acquired
Vroom securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 21,
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/vroom-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vroom


Vroom operates an end-to-end ecommerce platform that sells fully
reconditioned vehicles.

The Class Period commences on June 9, 2020, when Vroom filed the
prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO") with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on a Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the registration statement for the
IPO.

On September 8, 2020, Vroom filed with the SEC a registration
statement on a Form S-1 for a follow-on stock offering, in which
Vroom sold 10.8 million shares of stock at $54.50 per share for
nearly $590 million in gross offering proceeds (the "Secondary
Offering").  On September 11, 2020, Vroom filed the prospectus for
the Secondary Offering with the SEC on a Form 424B4, which formed
part of and incorporated the registration statement for the
Secondary Offering.

According to the complaint, on March 3, 2021, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, Vroom
reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per
unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales
margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and
reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the
fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million."
During the accompanying earnings call, the defendants revealed that
Vroom was suffering from serious sales and support bottlenecks
which had severely constrained Vroom's growth and profits per
vehicle.

Following this news, Vroom's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or
27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion
of existing inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and
overreliance on third-party sales support; (2) Vroom's lack of
adequate sales and support staff had resulted in severe growth
constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales opportunities
and a greater than 10% increase in average days to sale for Vroom
products; (3) Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate
existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Vroom's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Vroom investors may, no later than May 21, 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]

VROOM INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Vroom, Inc.
("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) securities during the
period from November 11, 2020 through March 3, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until May 21, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press
release. The Company reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce
Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven
primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements
in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also
reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased
41.9% to $60.7 million."

On this news, the Company's stock price declined by $12.29 per
share, or approximately 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on
March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Vroom had not
demonstrated that it was able to control and scale growth in
respect to its salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2)
that, as a result, the Company was forced to discount aged
inventory to move through its retail channels or liquidated in its
wholesale channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross
profit per unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


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

VROOM INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Vroom, Inc.
("Vroom" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
11, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 21, 2021.  

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2QJnY6C to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Vroom failed to demonstrate any ability
to control and scale its salesforce to meet the demand for its
products. The Company discounted aged inventory to sell through the
retail channel and liquidated product through wholesale channels.
As a result, the Company's gross profit per unit was likely to
decline. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about Vroom, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

W.P. PRODUCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.P. Produce
Corporation. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. W.P. Produce
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02591 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

W.P. Produce -- https://www.wpproduce.com/ -- has imported and
distributed Desbry tropical green skin avocados from Florida
throughout the United States & Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAKE COUNTY, NC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gorrell Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEVEN E. GORRELL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKE COUNTY, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00129-M (E.D.N.C., March 16, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged systemic, company-wide willful failure to
properly pay its employees overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendant, through the
Wake County Department of Emergency Medical Services, as an hourly
paid paramedic from approximately 2006 to 2015, as field training
officer from approximately 2015 to 2020, then as paramedic again
since approximately 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a corporate
policy requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to record all of their hours worked on the day shift
started, instead of on the days they actually worked. As a result,
despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly
paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hour they
worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover from the Defendant overtime wages due, liquidated
damages in an equal amount, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and other legal and equitable relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

The Defendant, through the Wake County Department of Emergency
Medical Services, provides emergency ambulance service throughout
Wake County, North Carolina, on a 24-hour per day basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan D. Oxendine, Esq.
          James A. Barnes, Esq.
          OXENDINE BARNES & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          6500 Creedmoor Rd., Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27613
          Tel: (919) 848-4333
          Fax: (919) 848-4707
          E-mail: ryan@oxendinebarnes.com
                  jim@oxendinebarnes.com


WAKPAMNI LAKE: Marquez Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakpamni Lake
Community Corporation. The case is styled as Aileen Marquez,
Individually and On Behalf of Alf Others Similarly Situated v.
Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, Wakpamni Lake Community
Corporation II (also known as: WLCC II doing business as: Arrowhead
Advance), Raycen American Horse Raines formerly known as: Raycen
Ballard, Geneva Lone Hill, Case No. 3:21-cv-00525-WQH-KSC (S.D.
Cal., March 25, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Unsolicited Telephone Sales.

Arrowhead Advance -- https://www.arrowheadadvance.com/ -- provides
loans and installment services and is an entity of the Wakpamni
Lake Community Corporation (WLCC), a tribal corporation wholly
owned by the Wakpamni Lake Community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
          BLC LAW CENTER, APC
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 894-8831
          Fax: (866) 444-7026
          Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com


WAL-MART STORES: $2.9MM Class Settlement in Neal Suit Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Curtis Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart and
Synchrony Bank, f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Defendants. Roy
Campbell on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Synchrony Bank, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:17-cv-00022 (W.D.N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Incentive Awards, and Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Judge Bell held a Final Approval Hearing on March 18, 2021, after
notice of the Final Approval Hearing was given in accordance with
this Court's Order (1) Conditionally Certifying a Settlement Class,
(2) Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, (3) Approving
Notice Plan, and (4) Setting Final Approval Hearing.  He has
carefully considered all matters submitted to the Court at the
Final Approval Hearing.

The Settlement Class means: All persons and entities throughout the
United States (1) to whom Synchrony Bank placed, or caused to be
placed (either by one of its own employees or by an agent or
vendor), a call, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service, (3) by using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from June
17, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, (5)
where the subject of the call was a Synchrony account that did not
belong to the recipient of the call, and (6) where the recipient of
the call did not provide Synchrony the telephone number to which it
placed, or caused to be placed, the call.

There are no objections to the Settlement.

Judge Bell concludes that the Settlement's terms constitute, in all
respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all
Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and directs its consummation pursuant to
its terms and conditions.

Judge Bell approves the Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees of $966,666.67 (representing one-third of the $2.9 million
Settlement.  Additionally, the Class Counsel is awarded $20,525.39
in costs of litigation.  The award of attorneys' fees and
litigation costs are to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant
to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement.

The Judge finds the payment of service awards in the amount of
$10,000 to each of the two Settlement Class Representatives is fair
and reasonable.  Accordingly, each of the Settlement Class
Representatives is awarded $10,000, such amounts to be paid from
the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the
terms of the Agreement.

The Settlement Class described is finally certified, solely for
purposes of effectuating the Settlement and the Order and Final
Judgment.

Judge Bell dismisses, with prejudice, without costs to any party,
except as expressly provided for in the Agreement, all of the
Actions.  He directs the Claims Administrator to distribute the
consideration to the Settlement Class pursuant to the terms of the
Agreement.

By incorporating the Agreement and its terms in the Final Judgment
and Order, the Judge determines that the Final Judgment complies in
all respects with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1).
Finding that there is no just reason for delay, he orders that the
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal will constitute a final
judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Court orders that, upon the Effective Date, the
Settlement will be the exclusive remedy for any and all Released
Claims or the Plaintiffs and each and every Settlement Class
Member.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the Order on
the docket forthwith.

Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the
provisions of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Final Judgment &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrrrkbkr from
Leagle.com.


WALDEN LOCAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walden Local, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Walden Local, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02578 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Walden -- https://waldenlocalmeat.com/ -- offers New England and
New York sustainable, locally raised meat, distributed directly to
families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WATERMAN VENTURES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waterman Ventures,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Waterman Ventures, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02565 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Waterman Ventures -- http://www.waterman-ventures.com/-- is a
community of Brown University alumni: investors, entrepreneurs, and
innovation enthusiasts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WATFORD HOLDINGS: Facing Canh Putative Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watford Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing
a putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Canh v. Watford
Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021.

On October 9, 2020, the company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Arch Capital Group Ltd. (ACGL)
and Merger Sub pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Watford Holdings, with Watford Holdings
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACGL. On November 2,
2020, the company announced that it had entered into an amendment
to the merger agreement with ACGL and Merger Sub to amend certain
terms of the agreement.

Two lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. The first action
was filed on January 20, 2021, captioned Canh v. Watford Holdings
Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

The second action was filed on January 25, 2021, captioned
Ciccotelli v. Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No.650544/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.) (which we refer to as the. Both lawsuits name the company
and its directors as defendants.

The Canh Action is a putative shareholder class action. The
plaintiff claims to be a shareholder of the company. He asserts
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by, among other things, (i) agreeing to
the merger and allegedly failing to obtain maximum value for our
company in connection therewith; and (ii) allegedly failing to
disclose certain purportedly material information relating to the
Merger.

The plaintiff alleges that the company aided and abetted the
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief: (i) an injunction barring the Merger and
ordering the company's directors to obtain an un-specified
different transaction "in the best interest" of the company and its
shareholders; (ii) rescission or rescissory damages in the event
the Merger is consummated; (iii) a declaration that the directors
have breached their fiduciary duties; (iv) an order directing the
company and its directors to account for damages; and (v) costs and
fees in connection with the lawsuit.

The Ciccotelli Action is brought solely on behalf of the named
plaintiff, who claims to be a shareholder of our company. The
plaintiff asserts that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose certain
purportedly material information relating to the Merger.

The plaintiff alleges that we aided and abetted the directors'
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among
other relief: (i) a preliminary and permanent injunction barring
the Merger and directing the defendants to disseminate additional
information relating to the Merger; (ii) rescission or rescissory
damages in the event the Merger is consummated; (iii) a declaration
that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties; and (iv)
costs and fees in connection with the lawsuit.

Watford said, "Other potential plaintiffs may also file additional
lawsuits challenging the Merger. The outcome of Canh Action, the
Ciccotelli Action, and any additional future litigation is
uncertain. Such litigation, if not resolved, could prevent or delay
completion of the Merger and result in substantial costs to us,
including any costs associated with the indemnification of
directors and officers. One of the conditions to the closing of the
Merger is the absence of any law, injunction or order by any
governmental entity enjoining or otherwise prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger. Therefore, if a plaintiff were
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the consummation
of the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may
prevent the Merger from being completed, or from being completed
within the expected timeframe. The defense or settlement of any
lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the Merger is
completed may adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

Watford Holdings Ltd. is a global property and casualty, or P&C,
insurance and reinsurance company with approximately $1.2 billion
in capital as of December 31, 2020 and with operations in Bermuda,
the United States and Europe. The company's strategy combines a
diversified, casualty-focused underwriting portfolio, accessed
through its multi-year, renewable strategic underwriting management
relationship with Arch, with a disciplined investment strategy
comprising primarily non-investment grade corporate credit assets,
managed by HPS Investment Partners, LLC, or HPS.

WELCOME SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welcome Skateboards
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Welcome Skateboards Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-02598 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Welcome Skateboards -- https://welcomeskateboards.com/ -- offers
skateboards and clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Orantes Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ODILIA ORANTES, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
WESTLAKE WELLBEING PROPERTIES LLC et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. B295150 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Five, affirms the
trial court's order denying Westlake's motions to compel
arbitration.

Defendant Westlake employed Plaintiffs Orantes and Maria Elena
Avila Cardona as housekeepers at the Four Seasons Hotel Westlake
Village.

Ms. Orantes was born in Guatemala and moved to the United States in
1988 when she was about 27 years old.  She speaks and reads only
"very basic" English, enough to communicate with hotel guests
regarding, for example, their need for towels or room cleaning.
When she was hired by Westlake in 2007, her English was even more
limited. Westlake personnel knew her English was limited and, when
she was required to sign a document in English, "someone would
translate and give a basic description of the document before she
would sign it."  Orantes resigned her position with Westlake in
2017.

Ms. Cardona was born in Colombia and moved to the United States in
2008 when she was about 36 years old. She did not speak or read any
English when Westlake hired her as a housekeeper in 2012.
English-speaking managers at Westlake knew she did not speak
English and relied on other employees to interpret when they needed
to speak with her. Cardona resigned her position with Westlake in
2016.

Ms. Orantes, Ms. Cardona, and a former colleague, Karla Blanco,
filed a class action complaint asserting wage and hour claims
against Westlake and affiliated entities in 2017.  They allege wage
and hour claims against Westlake.

The appeal concerns Westlake's motions to compel arbitration as to
Orantes and Cardona.

In its motions to compel arbitration, Westlake alleged that, as
part of the hiring process, Orantes and Cardona each executed an
individual employment contract dubbed an "EmPact."  The EmPacts
included terms for a mediation and arbitration program given the
acronym "C.A.R.E." ("Complaint, Arbitration & Review for
Employees").  With its motion to compel arbitration, Westlake
submitted unsigned EmPact booklets and signed, one-page EmPact
forms for both Orantes and Cardona.  The materials relevant to
Orantes are similar, but not identical, to those relevant to
Cardona.

Westlake's motion was also accompanied by declarations from Jim
Cathcart, its human resources director since 2010.  According to
Cathcart, employees are informed arbitration is "not mandatory or a
condition of employment."  Cathcart's declarations did not suggest
he had personal knowledge of either the specific documents
presented to Orantes and Cardona or of how the hiring documents
were explained to them. Rather, he declared only that he found the
one-page EmPact forms they appeared to have signed and unsigned
EmPact booklets in their personnel files.

Ms. Orantes and Ms. Cardona acknowledged they signed the one-page
EmPact forms but denied they had seen the larger EmPact booklet or
were told about the document's arbitration provisions.

The trial court denied Westlake's motions as to both Orantes and
Cardona.  Preliminarily, the trial court found the Federal
Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Section 2 et seq.) did not govern its
analysis because Westlake did not satisfy its burden to demonstrate
the requisite connection to interstate commerce.  It then found
that neither employee entered into an enforceable agreement to
arbitrate their claims against Westlake.

As to Orantes, the trial court held the signed one-page EmPact form
did not reflect a meeting of the minds as to arbitration because it
was undisputed Orantes could not read the document and relied on a
description that did not mention arbitration.  Cathcart's assertion
that the EmPact documents were correctly explained to her, the
court found, was not based on personal knowledge.  As to Cardona,
the trial court concluded there was no evidence that she ever
received the unsigned EmPact booklet and, standing alone, the
signed one-page EmPact form was no more than an "agreement to
agree."  As with Orantes, the court disregarded Cathcart's
statement that the agreement was explained to her because it was
not based on personal knowledge.

As an alternative ground for denying Westlake's motions, the trial
court found the purported arbitration agreements were
unconscionable.  It determined there was procedural
unconscionability because, notwithstanding employees' right to opt
out of arbitration, the EmPact booklets describing the material
terms of the agreements are entirely in English and there was no
evidence either employee received a copy of the AAA rules that
would govern arbitration.

The trial court found the agreements to be substantively
unconscionable because, notwithstanding the mutual obligation to
arbitrate disputes, the agreement extended only to claims employees
were likely to bring against Westlake.  It also found that the
pre-mediation C.A.R.E. steps give Westlake a "free peek" at
employees' claims and the arbitration rules give the arbitrator
mere discretion to award fees that a prevailing party would be
automatically entitled to under the Labor Code.

The Court of Appeals considers whether the trial court erred in
finding the purported arbitration agreements were unenforceable due
to fraud in the execution in Orantes's case and uncertain terms in
Cardona's case.  It concludes that the trial court correctly
determined Orantes and Cardona did not enter into an enforceable
agreement to arbitrate their claims against Westlake.  It finds
that the trial court's well-founded concerns about the description
of the one-page EmPact form provided to Orantes that did not
mention arbitration are properly analyzed as fraud in the execution
of the agreement.

As to Cardona, where the trial court focused primarily on the
form's indication there would be signatures on the separate
booklet, the Court of Appeals agrees there was a lack of certainty
regarding a promise to arbitrate pursuant to the procedure
"described in C.A.R.E." because the one-page EmPact form does not
define C.A.R.E. and does not incorporate any other document by
reference.

Because it affirms the order on these grounds, the Court of Appeals
does not address the trial court's alternative holding that the
purported agreements are unconscionable.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's
order denying Westlake's motions to compel arbitration.  Orantes
and Cardona will recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/jfd6w3yn from Leagle.com.

Stokes Wagner, Peter B. Maretz -- pmaretz@stokeswagner.com --
Shirley A. Gauvin -- sgauvin@stokeswagner.com -- and Adam L. Parry
-- aparry@stokeswagner.com -- for Defendants and Appellants.

Lavi & Ebrahimian, Joseph Lavi -- jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- Jordan D.
Bello -- jbello@lelawfirm.com -- and Vincent Granberry --
granberry@lelawfirm.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


WILLIAM E. NEWMAN: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, INC., and WILLIAM E. NEWMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 16,
2021) brings this complaint to recover back pay, liquidated
damages, attorney fees, litigation costs and other relief from the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around July 2019 to
work as a foreman and remain in that capacity until he quit working
for the Defendants on or about February 25, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he worked at least 55 hours per week without being
compensated for the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, he added.

William E. Newman, Inc. provides floor underlayment and leveling
services in the Northern District of Florida. William E. Newman
owns and operates the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Tel: (352) 244-2069
          Fax: (352) 372-3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


WINE.COM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wine.Com, LLC. The
case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Wine.Com, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02613 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021).

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

Wine.com -- https://www.wine.com/ -- is an American wine online
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WORKHORSE GROUP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Workhorse Group, Inc. (WKHS)
Class Period: 7/7/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-workhorse-group-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company 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. [GN]

WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
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.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 4 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.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.

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

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

WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Partially Stays Yeomans' Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRICIA YEOMANS, et al., Plaintiffs v. WORLD FINANCIAL
GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00792-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants in
part and denies in part the moving Defendants' motion to stay the
case.

Moving Defendants World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., and
World Financial Group, Inc., moved to stay the case pending their
appeals of the Court's orders denying their motions to transfer the
case and to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs Yeomans, Ismail Chraibi, Adrian Rodriguez, Robert
Jenkins, Dorothy Jenkins, Cameron Bradford, and Fatemeh Abtahi
allege the following.  The Defendants represent themselves as a
financial- and insurance-products marketing company; they recruit
individuals as "Associates" and purport to give people the tools
"to build and operate their own financial services business."
However, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants conduct their
business by way of a massive pyramid scheme," wherein recruiting
new Associates is one of the "main factors involved in achieving
promotions."  Once someone is an Associate, the Defendants pressure
that person to "purchase the Defendants' financial and insurance
products" and to "sell financial and insurance products to the new
Associates."

Central to the Plaintiffs' case is their allegation that the
Defendants have unlawfully misclassified Associates as 'independent
contractors' rather than as employees to further increase company
profits.  Specifically, each Associate is required to sign
identical, nonnegotiable Associate Membership Agreements ("AMAs"),
which set forth uniform rules and policies promulgated by the
Defendants, which subject Associates to strict control.  The
Plaintiffs and the Class Members signed the AMAs.

The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants completely control
the overall operation of the business and retain the exclusive
authority to hire and fire every Associate.  Furthermore, because
of this classification, Associates earn only commissions, not
minimum wage, and they bear the burden of business costs, which the
Defendants might otherwise bear.  In addition, Associates are
improperly deprived of the protection of workers' compensation, the
benefits of overtime pay, and meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiffs filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court in
December 2018.  The Defendants removed the case to federal court in
February 2019.  In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended
class action complaint ("FAC").

Shortly after the FAC was filed, the Defendants filed a motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, which the Court denied on Nov. 16, 2019,
because the forum selection clause in the AMAs violated California
public policy as expressed by section 925 of the California Labor
Code.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendants' filed a mandamus petition
asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer the case to the Northern
District of Georgia, notwithstanding the Court's order denying such
transfer.

On June 18, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the case, which the
Court denied on Sept. 11, 2020.  The Defendants appealed this order
shortly thereafter.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion to stay
the action pending the outcome of their appeals in the Ninth
Circuit.

In Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011), courts
generally consider four factors when determining whether to grant a
stay pending the appeal of a civil order: (1) the likelihood of the
moving party's success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party
will be irreparably injured if a stay is not granted; (3) whether a
stay will substantially injure the opposing party; and (4) the
public interest."

Likelihood of Success on the Merits or Serious Legal Questions

The Defendants argue that their direct appeal of the Court's order
denying their motion to compel arbitration raises two serious legal
questions.

Judge Chen holds that the first question, whether the Court is
required to conduct a jury trial to determine if the parties
entered into an arbitration agreement, is not a "serious legal
question" in the case because the Court did not deny the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the
parties had not entered into an arbitration agreement.

The second question in the Defendants' direct appeal, whether
"California's unconscionability doctrine set forth in Armendariz v.
Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., 6 P.3d 559 (Cal. 2000)
applies if the Federal Arbitration Act governs, and if so, if it
applies to independent-contactor misclassification cases like this
one," also fails to raise a serious legal question.  As the Court
explained in its arbitration order, "the Ninth Circuit has
concluded that 'California law regarding unconscionable contracts'
is not inherently 'unfavorable towards arbitration,' and instead
'reflects a generally applicable policy against abuses of
bargaining power.'"

The Defendants also argue, however, that their mandamus petition
challenging the Court's denial of their motion to transfer the case
to the Northern District of Georgia raises serious legal questions
about the application of section 925, which the Ninth Circuit has
never discussed.

Indeed, it appears the Ninth Circuit has never addressed section
925 at all, let alone whether it prevents transferring a case where
plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as independent
contractors.  The Defendants' mandamus petition also argues that
section 925 is preempted by federal law favoring forum selection
clauses, and that it does not apply to contracts entered into
before the law was enacted on Jan. 1, 2017.

Admittedly, almost all district courts agree with this Court's
analysis of these questions.  Accordingly, because the Defendants'
mandamus petition in the case presents serious legal questions
material to the outcome of the appeal since the Ninth Circuit has
yet to address the question at bar, the Judge considers the
remaining three factors for obtaining a stay.

Irreparable Harm to Defendants

The Defendants' portend that they will be irreparably harmed if
forced to litigate their claims, including having to respond to
class-wide discovery, because if they succeed in their appeals the
case will be either transferred to Georgia or to arbitration.  They
do not specify exactly what the "harm" of litigating the case in
this forum will be, but typically that harm is understood to be
"(1) the loss of time and money associated with the ongoing
litigation of the case pending appeal; and (2) the irrecoverable
loss of the speed and efficiency of the arbitral forum."

First, Judge Chen Court has pointed out that nearly all courts have
concluded that incurring litigation expenses does not amount to an
irreparable harm.  Therefore, the Defendants will not be prejudiced
if the Court allows the parties to conduct reasonable pre-trial
discovery while Defendants' appeals are pending.  Moreover, if the
case were ordered to be transferred to the Northern District of
Georgia, the Judge is hesitant to preempt the transferee court from
making key procedural and substantive rulings.  Therefore, to avoid
any injury "from the actual adjudication of the case on the merits
in federal court," he issues only a partial stay that does not
permit trial, dispositive motions, the certification of a class, or
adjudication of the case on the merits.

Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs argue that they have already suffered, and will
continue to suffer, irreparable harm from the continued delay of
their case.

Judge Chen holds that the balance of hardships tips sharply in
favor of staying all non-discovery-related activity in the case
until the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits of Defendants' appeals.
The risk of further delay will be minimized in the case because
the Court will allow the Plaintiffs to conduct reasonably tailored
discovery.  If the Defendants' appeals are not decided by the time
the parties complete this initial discovery, the Plaintiffs can
move the Court to reconsider its partial stay at that time.

Public Interest

Lastly, Judge Chen holds that the public interest does not tilt
strongly in either party's favor.  There are competing interests in
the case.  On the one hand, there is an interest under the FAA in
enforcing valid arbitration agreements.  On the other hand, the
existence of a federal policy favoring arbitration does not, by
itself, require a stay, and the Court must consider other public
policies at issue, such as California's interest in enforcing its
wage and hour laws.  Both interests are valid and largely in
equipoise for purposes of the motion.  Therefore, the public
interest factor is neutral.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Chen grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion by partially staying the action for all
purposes pending the issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on
their mandamus petition except that the parties may engage in
reasonable discovery commensurate with that which would likely be
permitted if the case were arbitrated (which allows for any
eventual ruling that this case should be arbitrated), but also
including discovery keyed to the PAGA claim which is likely to
proceed in any event.

Moreover, the Judge vacates the hearing on the Defendants' motion
scheduled for March 25, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.  Instead, he will hold a
status conference where the Court will decide what discovery is
reasonable while the Defendants' appeals are pending.

The parties are instructed to meet and confer about the scope of
discovery to be permitted during the stay, keeping in mind that the
Court has allowed, in similar cases, focused discovery "designed to
allow the Plaintiffs to secure and preserve the evidence needed to
pursue their PAGA claims otherwise at risk due to delay."  In the
past, this has included the production of a list of individuals
that might be covered by the PAGA claims, contact information for
those individuals, time and pay records related to those claims,
and depositions of witnesses whose testimony might be lost with the
passage of time.

The Order disposes of Docket No. 89.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yvhd8v43 from Leagle.com.


YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit pending before the Northern
District of California.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
and operations on February 9, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.

On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action. The case remains pending.

Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."

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

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


ZUM SERVICES: Order Allowing Arbitration in Contreras Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBINA CONTRERAS, et al., Petitioners v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ZUM SERVICES,
INC., Real Party in Interest, Case No. B307025 (Cal. App.),
Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Five, reversed an order
granting motion to compel arbitration.

Petitioners Robina Contreras and Gabriel Ets-Hokin filed suit
against Zum under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The
Petitioners alleged Zum misclassified them and others as
independent contractors, thereby, violating multiple provisions of
the California Labor Code.

Zum is a transportation service, designed to allow customers to
schedule rides for children using the Zum website or phone
application. Upon logging in the first time, new Zum drivers are
expected to sign the Zum Terms of Service Agreement. The Agreement
contains what appears to be a mutual dispute resolution provision
that requires drivers to resolve disputes through final and binding
arbitration.

The Agreement gives the arbitrator "exclusive authority to make all
procedural and substantive decisions regarding any dispute and to
grant any remedy that would otherwise be available in court;
provided, however, that the arbitrator does not have the authority
to conduct a class arbitration or a representative action, which is
prohibited by these Terms." The JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules
and Procedures, incorporated by reference, state in relevant part:
"Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over
the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the
agreement under which Arbitration is sought, and who are proper
Parties to the Arbitration, will be submitted to and ruled on by
the Arbitrator."

Plaintiff Contreras began driving for Zum in October 2018;
Plaintiff Ets-Hokin started in June 2019. Both assented to the
terms of the Agreement.

On March 23, 2020, the Petitioners filed the operative first
amended complaint against Zum, raising a single cause of action
pursuant to PAGA. The complaint alleged that Zum had misclassified
them as independent contractors and, as a result, Zum violated
multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and other statutes
and regulations protecting California employees. Specifically, the
Petitioners claimed Zum willfully misclassified drivers as
independent contractors in violation of section 226.84; failed to
reimburse drivers for expenses incurred while working in violation
of section 2802 and Wage Order No. 9; failed to ensure that drivers
receive minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of Sections
1194 and 1197; failed to pay drivers the appropriate overtime
premium for all overtime hours worked in violation of Sections 510,
554, 1194, and 1198; and required drivers to sign illegal contracts
in violation of Section 432.5.

On April 21, 2020, Zum filed its motion to compel arbitration,
citing the Agreement's provisions waiving class actions and
agreeing to submit claims to binding arbitration. The Petitioners
opposed the motion, arguing that PAGA claims cannot be compelled
into individual arbitration. In reply, Zum again emphasized the
terms of the Agreement and also raised the argument that the
"threshold issue" of whether petitioners were employees and thus
eligible to raise PAGA claims should be decided in arbitration.

On July 22, 2020, the trial court granted Zum's motion. In its
ruling, the court relied on California public policy that favors
resolving conflicts through arbitration, and Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.2, which directs courts to order the parties
to arbitrate a controversy if an agreement to arbitrate the
controversy exists. The court relied on cases that support the
general rule that arbitrators should decide the issue of
arbitrability if there is an enforceable delegation clause in an
agreement (Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63,
68-69; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th
227, 239.). The court found that the delegation clause here was
enforceable, with "clear and unmistakable" terms.

The Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court,
challenging the trial court's order granting the motion to compel
arbitration. Zum filed a preliminary opposition. On August 25,
2020, the Appellate Court issued an order to show cause why the
relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Zum filed a
return and petitioners a reply.

Judge Rubin notes that the Petitioners' writ petition is founded on
a fairly straightforward argument: The district's Supreme Court in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th
348 and several Courts of Appeal are uniform in holding that PAGA
claims are not waivable and are not arbitrable. Under that case law
and in light of the very nature of a PAGA claim, a court--not an
arbitrator--must decide all aspects of the claim. The only
exception is when the state, as real party in interest, has
consented to arbitration. The state did not consent here.

Zum argues PAGA is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and
Iskanian is no longer good law. But its more tailored assertion is:
The trial court did not order the PAGA claim to arbitration. It
only compelled a single antecedent fact or "gateway issue" to be
arbitrated: whether petitioners are employees, which they must be
to have standing under PAGA, or independent contractors, and thus
ineligible to bring a PAGA claim. Zum contends that, by virtue of
the delegation clause of the Agreement and its incorporation of
JAMS rules, "jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including
disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or
scope of the agreement and who are proper Parties to the
Arbitration, will be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator."
Iskanian and most other appellate opinions are beside the point.

Judge Rubin opines that PAGA claims are not subject to the FAA and
that PAGA claims cannot be arbitrated without state consent. He
points out that nothing in the record suggests that the state has
consented to the arbitration of the Petitioners' PAGA claim.

Zum also argues that, even if PAGA claims are not subject to the
FAA, even if Iskanian is still good law, and even if an employee by
predispute agreement may not be forced to arbitrate a PAGA claim,
the trial court's order was nevertheless correct.

Zum portrays the arbitrability question as "a private issue subject
to a private agreement, not a public issue in which the State has
an interest," as there will be no determinations on the merits of
the claim. The state will not have an interest in the suit unless
and until the arbitrator determines petitioners are employees and,
if it does, the PAGA claim may be litigated in court.

Judge Rubin opines it is fallacious wordsmithing. If an arbitrator
rules that petitioners are not 'aggrieved employees,' there will be
no remaining PAGA claim anywhere. By virtue of an arbitration to
which it did not consent, the state will have lost one of its
weapons in the enforcement of California's labor laws.

Judge Rubin adds, among other things, that Zum's cited cases all
have reached the same conclusion; and the Court agrees with the
chorus that in California--a PAGA plaintiff may not be compelled to
arbitrate whether he or she is an aggrieved employee.

Judge Rubin holds that a peremptory writ of mandate will issue
directing the respondent court to vacate its July 22, 2020 order
granting the motion to compel arbitration, and to issue a new order
denying the motion. The Petitioners will recover their costs in
this proceeding.

BAKER, J. and MOOR, J., concurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 1, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bh7cwu68 from Leagle.com.

Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com --
and Anne Kramer -- akramer@llrlaw.com -- for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Littler Mendelson, K. Kayvan Iradjpanah -- kiradjpanah@littler.com
-- and Ashley J. Brick -- abrick@littler.com -- for Real Party in
Interest.


ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the class
action suit initiated by James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, are
awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to transfer the action to
the Northern District of California.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On June 9, 2020 plaintiffs James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, both
residents of Maryland, filed a class action complaint in the
Northern District of Maryland.

Plaintiffs allege they were Zynga players who were affected by the
Data Incident. Similar to all the foregoing plaintiffs, the Oeste
plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and generally
allege that Zynga failed to adequately or reasonably protect
certain player information, including names, email addresses, and
passwords (among other items); that Zynga used outdated or improper
password hashing methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide
notice of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a
result of the Data Incident.

The Oeste plaintiffs assert claims for contractual breach,
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and claims for
relief under California consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Zynga responded to the complaint on August 31, 2020, with a motion
to transfer the action to the Northern District of California.

The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Bid for Initial Arbitration in Chaudhri Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the district court issued
an order in "Chaudhri complaint," denying the company's motion to
compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative
request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga
had made in connection with its motion.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

Since March 3, 2020, five consumer class action complaints have
been filed in connection with the Data Incident in federal court.
On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs – minor "I.C." (acting through
his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre – filed a class action
complaint arising out of the Data Incident, generally alleging that
Zynga failed to reasonably safeguard certain player information,
including names, email addresses, and passwords (among other
items); failed to provide them with timely notification of the
breach; and made misleading representations concerning the safety
and security of plaintiffs' personal information.

Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law
theories, including negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, failure
to comply with data breach notification statutes, and unjust
enrichment, and they seek injunctive relief and damages.

Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration and arbitration-related
discovery on May 8, 2020.

On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three
actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez, denying Zynga's motions
to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an
alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery
that Zynga had made in connection with its motions.

Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs'
identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's
records on its systems.

A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Christopher Rosiak.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On August 13, 2020, plaintiff Christopher Rosiak filed a fifth
class action in the Northern District of California (the Rosiak
complaint).

Plaintiff alleges similar and analogous claims to those in the
Martinez (and other) actions, alleging that he suffered harm as a
result of Zynga's data breach. Plaintiff Rosiak alleges multiple
state law claims, including contract-based claims, negligence, and
violation of California's unfair competition, false advertising,
and consumer protection statutes.  

Pursuant to extension orders granted by the Court, Zynga's deadline
to respond is currently March 8, 2021.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Court Grants Initial Arbitration in Johnson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the district court in the
"Johnson complaint", issued an order denying Zynga's motions to
compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative
request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga
had made in connection with its motions.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas filed a
class action complaint in the Northern District of California
federal court (the "Johnson complaint").

Similar to the Chaudhri complaint, the Johnson plaintiffs –
residents of Missouri and Wisconsin – assert Zynga failed to
adequately protect certain player information, including names,
email addresses, and passwords (among other items). Plaintiffs
contend that, despite Zynga's representations in its privacy policy
that sensitive player information would be adequately protected,
plaintiffs' passwords were stored using inadequate hashing methods
or in plain text.

Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures
caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert
numerous various claims against Zynga, including claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory
relief, breach of confidence, breach of contract and implied
contract, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL",
CGL 17200, et seq.), and state-specific violations of Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act and Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On May 26, 2020, Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration and
arbitration-related discovery.

On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three
actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez, denying Zynga's motions
to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an
alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery
that Zynga had made in connection with its motions.

Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs'
identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's
records on its systems.

A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Court OK's Initial Arbitration in Martinez Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the district court in the
"Martinez complaint", issued an order denying Zynga's motions to
compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative
request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga
had made in connection with its motions.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro,
residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a third class action
complaint in the Northern District of California (the "Martinez
complaint").

Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected
by the Data Incident. Similar to the Chaudhri and Johnson
plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga
failed to adequately store and protect or otherwise secure certain
player information, including names, email addresses, and passwords
(among other items); that Zynga used outdated and improper password
encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice
of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of
the Data Incident. Like the Johnson and Chaudhri plaintiffs, the
Martinez plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per
se, and unjust enrichment, as well as contractual claims, and
claims for relief under multiple state consumer protection
statutes.

Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation
and omission claims under California's false advertising law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a
nationwide class.

Zynga responded to the Martinez complaint by filing a motion to
compel arbitration on June 19, 2020.

On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three
actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez—denying Zynga's motions
to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an
alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery
that Zynga had made in connection with its motions.

Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs'
identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's
records on its systems.

A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


[*] Poultry Companies to Pay $104MM to Settle Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
thepoultrysite.com reports that according to reporting in Meat +
Poultry, the class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods, Peco Foods,
Fieldale Corp and George's Farms Corp alleges that the poultry
processors conspired to lower chicken production and raise consumer
prices. This action is in violation of state and federal anti-trust
laws. It also violates consumer protection regulations.

The court document stipulates that the companies would pay $104.5
million. Fieldale would pay $1.7 million, Peco Foods $1.9 million,
George's $1.9 million and Tyson $99 million as part of the
settlement agreement. The court document said the "ice breaker
settlements" and the companies' agreement to provide cooperation
will strengthen the class's case against the remaining processors.

The case has been in federal court since 2016. [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 ***