---

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

              Monday, April 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 62

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Buckner Claims
AA ACTION: Faces Chapman FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
ACCENTURE LLC: Fails to Reimburse Home Office Fees, Robledo Says
AFFILION LLC: Tenth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Armijo Class Suit
ALL EMBRACED LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Furfari Suit Alleges

ALLY FINANCIAL: Minnesota Court Narrows Claims in Freeman Suit
ALTICE USA: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
AMERICAN CONTRACT: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Marcus Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Faces Scaramuzzo ERISA Suit Over Savings Plan
AMNEAL PHARMA: CRS Bid for Class Certification Pending

AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
AMNEAL PHARMA: Summary Judgment Bids in Opana Suit Pending
AMNEAL PHARMA: Xyrem(R) Related Suits Transferred to California
AMYRIS INC: Pays $125K to Plaintiff's Counsel in Flatischler Suit

AMYRIS INC: Securities Class Suit in California Underway
ANTARES PHARMA: Court Tosses Smith Class Action
APPLE FEDERAL: Davis Files Suit in Maryland
APPLE INC: Faces Hoose Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Games
ATMHS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cativo Suit Alleges

AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Faces Atachbarian Suit Over Stolen Drivers' Data
AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Granted Final Approval
AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Action Pending
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Signs Binding Term Sheet to Settle Gaynor Suit
BABY TREND: Faces Oceguera Suit Over Defective Booster Seats

BATTERY PARK: Pastor Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Clothes Ironers
BAYARDS ALE: Manjarrez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beeman Sues Over Crop Inputs' Price Control
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Eagle Alleges Price Rigging of Crop Inputs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Merriman Claims

BIWATER INC: Aispuro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Inspectors
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Boyd Class Action
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid for Class Certification Pending
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Putative Class Suit Underway
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Settlement in Hernandez Granted Final Approval

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
BRIDGE LOCATIONS: Faces Barnes Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Denial of Class Cert. in Freight Suit Affirmed
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fralish ECOA Suit in N.D. Indiana
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Rhoden Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

CBS CORPORATION: Construction Laborers Seek to Certify Class Action
CENTRAL CONGREGATIONS: Faces Lojano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CENTRAL SQUARE: Doughty Data Breach Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CHAD WOLF: Court Tosses Kikvadze Bid to Certify Matter as Urgent
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Dismissal of Benitez Claims Upheld

CHART INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Storage Tank-Related Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Talks on Royalties Suits Reopened
CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: C.D. California Narrows Claims in RJ ERISA Suit
CLASSIC PARTY: Court Dismisses Blair Class Suit With Leave to Amend
CLEAN HARBOR: Smith Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California

CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
COLT BBQ & SPIRITS: Kapzynski Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMPUTER CAREER: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONTRACT CALLERS: Court Dismisses Mixon FDCPA Suit With Prejudice
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooper Balks at Deceptive Collection Letter

CONWAY REGIONAL: Willis Seeks Ultrasound Technologists' Unpaid OT
CORELOGIC INC: Brown Putative Class Suit vs. RPS Underway
CORELOGIC INC: Removes Fernandez Suit to District Court
CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in Feliciano Suit Granted Final Approval
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway

COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Lloyd Seeks to Certify Class of Owners/Occupants
COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood Cops Retirement System Pending
CRAIN FORD: Capital One's Bid to Dismiss Richardson Suit Granted
CURADEN AG: Sixth Circuit Affirms Judgment in Lyngaas TCPA Suit
DELTA AIR: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Agrees to Settle Olivares, Holt & Kato Suits
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Dismissal of State Court Action Upheld
DENTSPLY SIRONA: New York Putative Class Suit Underway
DETROIT EDISON: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claim in Nolan Suit
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit

DRIVEN DELIVERIES: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DUAL DIAGNOSIS: $1.3M Attys.' Fees Awarded in Cusack-Acocella Suit
EDCO SUPPLY: Vasconcelo Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
EL MARIACHI: Lopez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss Hunter Securities Class Suit Pending

ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Class Suit Stayed
EMBROIDERY CENTRAL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EMBROIDERY DESIGNS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ENERGYFIRST ENGINEERING: Subpoena Compliance Compels in Field Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Adams FCRA Suit Transferred to in N.D. Georgia

EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Brach Family Foundation Class Suit Underway
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: O'Donnell Appeals Grant of Entry of Judgment
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
ESTEE LAUDER: Joseph Product Liability Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
ESTEEM PATROL: Preliminary Conference Filed in Bailey NYLL Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Kinin Over Open Display Ads Market Conspiracy
FAHRENHEIT MECHANICAL: Faces Fahrenheit Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
FARFETCH LIMITED: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit Pending
FARFETCH LIMITED: Walter Putative Class Action Stayed
FCA US: Claims in Flores' First Amended Class Complaint Narrowed

FIELDWORKS LLC: Counts II & III in Mathews FCRA Suit Dismissed
FIRST TRANSIT: Faces Raj Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
FLINT, MI: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Garland Water Crisis Suit
FLINT, MI: Court Partly Grants Dismissal Bids in Water Crisis Suit
FLUENT HOME: Stover FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D. West Virginia

FORD MOTOR: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in Cashatt WPLA Suit
FOX KOHLER: 3rd Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration Bid in Frederick
FPA VILLA: Lawrence's Amended Suit Dismissed as a Shotgun Pleading
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays Class Suit in Connecticut
FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces Helms FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey

FUBOTV INC: Lee Slams Share Drop Over Wavering Business
FULTON FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Kress Settlement Pending
FUSIFORM INC: Fails to Pay OT Premium, Earned Wages, Truesdell Says
GATEWAY ENERGY: Leverick Sues Over Improper Pricing Practices
GDB INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Sues Over Warehouse Workers' Unpaid Wages

GJ COMPANY: Faces Stage Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
GLOBALEX CORPORATION: Maravilla Sues Over Workplace Discrimination
GOOGLE LLC: Long Sues Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino Games
GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Online Gambling Activities, Bruschi Says
GREIF PACKAGING: Gomez FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California

GX ACQUISITION: Facing Celularity Merger Related Suits
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Baccari Claims
HARRIMAN UTILITY: Hackworth Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
HEAT MAKE: Facing Valdez Employment Suit in California
HELIX ENERGY: Perschke Sues Over HVAC Technicians' Unpaid Overtime

HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Cert. Hearing in Forsyth Set for April 15
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
HOP ENERGY: Bid to Remand Callery Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
HOP ENERGY: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Callery Without Prejudice
ILLINOIS: Pearson Suit v. Governor & State Dismissed With Prejudice

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
INTERFACE INC: Swanson Securities Class Action Underway
IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
JAMAICA SERVICE: Wilson Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Court Narrows Claims in Duncan Class Suit

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Summary Judgment Bid in Carlisle Suit Denied
JOE'S ENTERPRISES: Reyes Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Key Suit in Northern District of Calif.
JUUL LABS: Puente Suit Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
KARAMOLEGKOS ELEFTHERIOS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Says

KELLY AUTOMOTIVE: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sagar Claims
KFORCE INC: Misclassifies Recruiters, Cook Suit Claims
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Cozier Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
KRISTIN FARMER: Kelly Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
L'OASIS DELI: Tapia Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

LEO PHARMA: Kamlade Files Suit in E.D. California
LIBERTY LATIN: VTR Finance Defends Multiple Class Action Suits
LITHKO CONTRACTING: Lansing Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Sandra Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
LOCAL WEST: Tejeda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff

LODGE MANUFACTURING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Williams Says
LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Astorga Bid for Class Certification Tossed
LOUISIANA COLLEGE: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Visnack Granted
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Savidis Bid for Class Certification Pending
LUMITY LIFE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
LYNN UNIVERSITY: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Gibson Nixed
MAD at S.A.D.: Faces Brothers Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
MAM USA: Court Tosses Claims for Injunctive Relief in Freeman Suit

MARKET OF CHOICE: King Suit Seeks Assistant Store Managers' OT Pay
MAXGEN ENERGY: Faces Navas Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Teamsters Sues Over Opioid Epidemic Nuisance
MDL 2848: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Richins Alleges
MEILING ZOU: Plaintiffs Object Debtor's Dischargeability of Debts

METICULOUS CLEANING: Underpays Housekeepers, Amaya Suit Claims
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Conte Claims
MONSANTO COMPANY: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
MOUNT VERNON, NY: Montero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
NAPW INC: Debora Bayne Seeks to Certify Class Action

NEEDLEPAINT LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEO MOBILE: Improperly Pay Technicians' Wages, Nera Suit Alleges
NEW EXPRESS: Sanchez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
NEW YORK STATE: Perry Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
NEXTCURE INC: Bid to Dismiss Zhou Putative Class Suit Pending

NGL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments, PRSA Suit Says
NOKIA CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Alcatel-Lucent Integration
NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
NORTH GREENVILLE: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHEAST COMMUNITY: Underpays Blended Case Managers, Carroll Says

NORTHSIDE ISD: W.D. Texas Narrows Claims in Lartigue IDEA Suit
NORTHSTAR CEMETERY: Underpays Employees, Schornik Suit Claims
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeals Approval of Settlement in NJCHF Suit
OLAM SPICES: Prelim. Hearing on Beltran Settlement Set for April 7
ONDELLO INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Kiler Suit Says

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Hodges Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
PACIFICORP: James Putative Class Suit Underway
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Interlocutory Appeal in Plymouth Suit Denied
PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 27
PENN POWER: Underpays Maintenance Engineers, Reith Suit Alleges

PENNSYLVANIA: Objections to Weeks' Petition for Review Sustained
PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Settlement Entered in Stein Class Action
PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Roofers' Pension Fund Suit
PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada

PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Nevada
PLUM PBC: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Ellison Suit Alleges
PLUSHCARE INC: Mobile App Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Says
PMI MANAGEMENT: Luu Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Leasing Agents
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending

POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Soto-Melendez Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Suit
POPULAR INC: Maura Appeals Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
POPULAR INC: Petition for Rehearing in Camacho Suit Junked
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arcila FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
QWEST CORP: Settlement in Sales Practices Suit Gets Final Approval
R&L INTERIOR: Duran Seeks to Certify Collective Action
R.M. GALICIA: Faces Bell Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
RADNET INC: Pfeiffer Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action

RED ROBIN: Discloses Payment of Vigueras Settlement Amount
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Price Increase in Contracts
RITUALS COSMETICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
RIVERVIEW HOTEL: Nelson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Trading Platform, Lybrook Says

ROBUST ENTERPRISE: Mazzara Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in California
SANOFI: Continues to Defend APESAC Class Action in Paris
SANOFI: Discovery Ongoing in Lantus(R) Direct Purchasers Suits
SANOFI: Facing 25 Putative Class Actions Related to Zantac(R)

SANOFI: Facing 5 Zantac(R) Related Putative Class Suits in Canada
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Ruf-Tepper Class Suit Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Deka Investment Suit Concluded
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Sanchez Putative Suit vs. Bank Underway

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Junk Giuliano Putative Class Suit Pending
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Nix Tonkawa Tribe of Indians Suit Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fife Suit Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed

SENTRY ON-SITE: Langston Seeks Security Workers' Unpaid Overtime
SHOE PALACE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
SILVANA RESTAURANT: Facing Jimenez Class Suit Over Labor Violations
SIMMS ASSOCIATES: Faces Helms FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
SIMPLY MOVING: Scott Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Securities Suit in Maryland Concluded
SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement in San Diego Suit Granted Final Approval
SMCS SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
SMITH & SMITH: Connot Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter

SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Class Suit Ongoing in Toronto
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
SPARK ENERGY: Subsidiary Facing Glikin Purported Class Suit
STANDARD FIRE: Lindenbaum Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
STATE FARM: Han Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

STERLING BAY: Faces Goddess RICO Suit in N.D. Illinois
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Malone Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Underpays Recycle Employees, Sanchez Alleges
SURGICAL CARE: Faces Spradling Suit Over No-Poach Agreements
TD AMERITRADE: Manipulates Trading Platform, Shaeffer Alleges

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Settlement in Prause Suit Granted Initial Approval
TEXAS: Dismissal of Black v. McLane Without Prejudice Affirmed
TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Strougo Class Suit Pending
TIVITY HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Weiner Suit
TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18

TODD GREINER: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under AWPA
TOM'S OF MAINE: Sabatano Sues Over Deceptive Toothpaste Marketing
TRAVIS CREDIT: Order in Stoutt Certified for Interlocutory Appeal
TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: Two Classes Certified in MacMann Wage Suit
TRUE INSTALL: Jackson Bid for Conditional Class Certification OK'd

TRUSTCO BANK: Lamoureux Sues Over Improper Banking Practices
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Bid to Consolidate IPO Related Suits Pending
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Consolidated IPO Related Suit in New York Underway
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: First Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Capriole Suit
UBS GROUP: Bid to Nix Government Bonds-Related Suit Pending

UBS GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LIBOR Putative Class Suit
UBS GROUP: Settlement in Foreign Currency Suits  Granted Final OK
UNILEVER UNITED: Lipetz Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
UNION PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Fleury BIPA Suit Denied
UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Properly Maintain Aircraft, Schnell Says

UNITED STATES: Keough Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Patients Class Certified in Alexander Suit
US PREMIUM: Continues to Defend Four Class Action Suits
USAA CASUALTY: Cain Suit Removed From State Court to D. Nevada
VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Remains Stayed

VALLEY FORGE: JMR Holdings Slams Denied Insurance Claims
VBI VACCINES: Putative Class Suit Against SciVac Underway
VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Remains Stayed
VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Suit Still Stayed
VIATRIS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending

VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Auto-Injector(R) Securities Class Suit Underway
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchaser Suit Underway
VIATRIS INC: Opioid Related Putative Class Action Suits Underway
VIATRIS INC: PERS Mississippi Suit Against Mylan Ongoing

VROOM INC: Faces Holbrook Suit Over Drop in Share Price
VXL ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avant Suit Alleges
WALGREEN CO: Bid to Dismiss Third Amended Forth Complaint Granted
WALGREEN CO: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jean-Pierre Suit Claims
WALMART INC: Faces Arrison Suit Over Unpaid Wages During Pandemic

WALMART INC: Faces Martin Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
WASHBOYS FULL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henry Suit Claims
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Records $1.1MM Loss Reserve in Herrington
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Faces Fortuna Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: BolaWrap Related Putative Class Suits Underway

WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Junks Nolen Class Action
XL FLEET: Faces Suh Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ZHAORUI FAN: Faces Labor Suit Over Dischargeability of Debts
ZORO TOOLS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Claims
ZURICH AMERICAN: Simpson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices


                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Buckner Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR BUCKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
CHUBB FIRE, LTD, CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.,
DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00918-RMG
(D.S.C., March 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

AA ACTION: Faces Chapman FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AA Action Collection
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as CHAPMAN v. AA ACTION COLLECTION
CO., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-04175-WJM-MF (D.N.J., March 5, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and is assigned to the Hon. Judge William J. Martini.

Defendant AA Action Collection Co., Inc. is doing business as: AA
Action Collection Company.[BN]

Plaintiff Kellie Chapman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

ACCENTURE LLC: Fails to Reimburse Home Office Fees, Robledo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROBLEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCENTURE LLC and DOES 1 t0 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21CV378685 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
March 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act by failing to reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees home office expenses following their transition
to work from home setup due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee and
started to work from home on March 16, 2020.

Accenture LLC is a global information technology services company
that is doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
         ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
         1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
         Los Angeles, CA 90035
         Telephone: (310) 277-0614
         Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
         E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

                 - and –
         
         India Lin Bodien, Esq.
         INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
         2522 North Proctor Street, #387
         Tacoma, WA 98406
         Telephone: (253) 212-7913
         Facsimile: (253) 276-0081
         E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

AFFILION LLC: Tenth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Armijo Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN ARMIJO and OFELIA RONQUILLO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. AFFILION, LLC; EMCARE, INC.; EMCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-2086 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative class action
complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract.

In July 2019, Mr. Armijo and Ms. Ronquillo brought their complaint
alleging that the Defendants billed them for unreasonable and
excessive fees.  The Plaintiffs received medical services at
Mountain View Regional Medical Center ("MVRMC").  MVRMC was not
named as a defendant.  Instead, the Plaintiffs named entities they
contend are responsible for the billing.

Their complaint sounded in negligence and breach of contract.  The
negligence claim was premised on the theory that the Defendants
were under a duty "to exercise reasonable care in order to bill the
Plaintiffs and the Class only for reasonable, usual and customary
fees for medical services actually provided," and "to have
procedures in place to ascertain reasonable, usual and customary
fees for medical services."  The contract claim was based on an
alleged implied in fact contract under the "mutual understanding
that medical services would be provided for a usual and customary
fee," and that the Defendants later charged "exorbitant and
unreasonable fees" for those services.  The Plaintiffs also alleged
that the implied contracts are procedurally unconscionable (because
they are contracts of adhesion) and substantively unconscionable
(because the Defendants charged unreasonable and excessive fees for
medical services).

After removal, the Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The district court
granted the motion, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a
duty or injury sufficient to support a claim for negligence and
failed to plead sufficient facts giving rise to an implied
contract.  The Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order
dismissing the complaint.

First, the Plaintiffs argue that they adequately stated a
negligence claim.  They contend that the district court erred in
finding that they failed to allege that the Defendants owed them a
duty or that they suffered a cognizable injury.  The Plaintiffs
maintain that the Dfendants owe them a duty of care because
defendants are involved in the provision of medical services.  They
assert that, because the Defendants provided medical care, their
duty of care arises therefrom and extends to the billing for
medical services.

The Tenth Circuit finds that the district court did not consider or
discuss foreseeability in concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to
allege that the Defendants owed them a duty.  And while Rodriguez
clearly adopts a broader concept of duty than that adopted by most
states, subsequent cases applying its principles demonstrate that
this concept is not unlimited.

More fundamentally, however, the existence of a broad concept of
duty under New Mexico law does not transform all perceived wrongs
into negligence claims.  The Plaintiffs do not actually allege that
the Defendants were negligent, i.e., that their conduct fell below
the standard of care owed to them thereby creating a foreseeable
risk of harm.  Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
intentionally billed them and others in their position at an
unreasonable rate, causing them to pay bills that they contend were
too high and, in some cases, damaging their financial stability and
credit ratings.  These allegations, according to the Tenth Circuit,
do not state a claim for negligence, even under an expansive
concept of duty.

The Plaintiffs next contend that the district court erred in
dismissing their contractual claims.  The complaint neglected to
specify whether the Plaintiffs alleged an implied in fact contract
or an implied in law contract, but they contend on appeal that they
adequately pled claims under both theories.  They also contend that
they adequately stated claims for procedural and substantive
unconscionability.

The Tenth Circuit finds that the complaint contains no factual
allegations regarding the formation or terms of the contract to be
implied from the parties' conduct.  Indeed, the Plaintiffs did not
plead any facts regarding (1) the intake procedures at MVRMC and
what representations, if any, were made during that process, or (2)
the medical services they received and the reasonable cost of those
services.  The Plaintiffs remind the Court that putative class
members may have been incoherent or unconscious at the time the
contracts were allegedly formed, suggesting that contract formation
also may be at issue.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs failed to carry
their burden of alleging "enough factual matter (taken as true) to
suggest" that they are entitled to relief under an implied in fact
contract theory.

The Appellate Court also finds that the Plaintiffs' failure to
assert a quasi-contract claim below precludes them from raising the
claim on appeal.  In any event, they again fail to articulate a
basis for quasi-contract.  Unlike implied in fact contracts,
quasi-contracts are enforced to prevent unjust enrichment when one
party has received a benefit but no enforceable contract exists
between the parties.  On appeal, the Plaintiffs' quasi-contract
theory is based solely on the alleged formation of an implied
contract under which they would be obligated to pay only a
reasonable price for the services they received.  These allegations
do not support recovery.

Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that they adequately pled that the
alleged contracts were unconscionable.  The equitable doctrine of
unconscionability "allows courts to render unenforceable an
agreement that is unreasonably favorable to one party while
precluding a meaningful choice of the other party."  In other
words, unconscionability is an affirmative defense to enforcement
of a contract, not a cause of action under which plaintiffs may
recover from defendants.  Accordingly, the district court did not
err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' unconscionability claim.

In light of the foregoing, the Tenth Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/v2ve8h4x from Leagle.com.


ALL EMBRACED LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Furfari Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO A. FURFARI, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL -EMBRACED LLC; and WILLIAM A.
RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21100 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 23,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Furfari was employed by the Defendant as construction
worker.

ALL -EMBRACED LLC is a construction company providing commercial
and residential general construction services. [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


ALLY FINANCIAL: Minnesota Court Narrows Claims in Freeman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Patricia Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Inc. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1241 (WMW/HB) (D. Minn.), Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff Freeman is a resident of Minnesota who purchased a 2013
Hyundai Elantra in June 2015 for personal, family, or household
purposes.  When she purchased the Vehicle, Freeman entered into a
retail installment contract that the dealership immediately
assigned to Defendant Ally.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Freeman obtained a loan from Ally
to finance the purchase of the Vehicle, granted Ally a security
interest in the Vehicle to secure repayment of the loan, and agreed
to make 60 monthly installment payments of $227.05.  The Agreement
also provides that "acceptance of a late payment or late charge
does not excuse your late payment or mean that you may keep making
late payments" and that "if you pay late, we may also take the
steps described below," which include repossession of the Vehicle.

Ms. Freeman began to fall behind on her monthly payments under the
Agreement as early as October 2015.  Almost all of her payments to
Ally were late, partial, or irregular payments, which Ally
repeatedly accepted.  Ally sent Freeman late notices on eleven
occasions between November 2015 and March 2019.  The March 3, 2019
late notice states that "if you pay and are late again in making
your payments, we may exercise our rights without sending you
another notice like this one even though we may have accepted late
payments from you in the past."

On June 5, 2019, Ally hired Defendant Resolvion, LLC, to acquire
Freeman's Vehicle through self-help repossession.  In turn,
Resolvion hired Defendant 11th Hour Recovery, Inc., to perform the
actual self-help repossession of Freeman's Vehicle on behalf of
Resolvion and Ally.  Thereafter, 11th Hour accessed the locked
parking garage at the apartment complex where Freeman resided and
repossessed Freeman's Vehicle.  Freeman subsequently contacted the
Defendants, who each refused to release the Vehicle to her.  Ally
sold the Vehicle and retained the proceeds of the sale.

Freeman commenced the putative class-action lawsuit against the
Defendants in May 2020 and filed an amended complaint in August
2020.  Count I alleges that Resolvion and 11th Hour violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692f(6), by repossessing Freeman's Vehicle without the legal right
to do so.  Count II alleges that the Defendants' repossession of
Freeman's Vehicle did not comply with notice requirements under
Minnesota law, in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 336.9-609.
Count III alleges conversion based on the Defendants' repossession
of Freeman's Vehicle.  Count IV alleges that the Defendants'
actions were a breach of the peace, in violation of Minn. Stat.
Section 336.9-609.  And Count V alleges that the Defendants'
actions invaded Freeman's privacy.

The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety.  They argue that (i) Freeman fails to state an FDCPA
claim because the Defendants had a legal right to repossess the
Vehicle (Count I); (ii) Freeman fails to state an FDCPA claim
because the amended complaint fails to allege facts establishing
that Freeman justifiably relied on Ally's repeated acceptance of
late payments (Count I); (iii) Freeman has not plausibly alleged
that Defendants had a duty to provide Freeman a Cobb v. Midwest
Recovery Bureau Co., 295 N.W.2d 232, 237 (Minn. 1980), notice
before repossessing the Vehicle (Counts II and III); (iv) Freeman
has not stated a claim for breach of the peace (Count IV); and (v)
Freeman fails to state an invasion-of-privacy claim because she
lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in either the parking
garage or the Vehicle and alleged disclosures to credit reporting
agencies cannot form the basis for an invasion-of-privacy claim
because such a claim is preempted by the FCRA (Count V).

First, Judge Wright holds that Freeman's allegations do not
establish either that Ally had a duty to provide a Cobb notice to
Freeman before repossessing the Vehicle or that Freeman justifiably
relied on Ally's repeated acceptance of late, partial, or irregular
payments.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss Count I
of the amended complaint are granted, and Freeman's FDCPA claim
(Count I) is dismissed with prejudice.

Next, the Judge holds Freeman has not plausibly alleged that the
Defendants had a duty to provide Freeman a Cobb notice before
repossessing the Vehicle.  Accordingly, for the same reasons
addressed, the Defendants' motions to dismiss Count II and Count
III of the amended complaint are granted.  Freeman's
wrongful-repossession claim (Count II) and conversion claim (Count
III) are dismissed with prejudice.

Ms. Freeman's allegations, if proven to be true, also could
plausibly establish that the location where the repossession took
place and the type of premises involved (a personal parking space
in a locked, secured residential parking garage with limited
access), together with the alleged use of deceit or force to gain
entry, rendered the Defendants' conduct unreasonable.  As such,
Freeman has plausibly alleged a breach-of-the-peace claim.
Moreover, although the Defendants argue that "no one saw the
repossession take place" and "no altercation occurred at the time
of the repossession," no such facts are pleaded in the amended
complaint.  Therefore, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing.
Accordingly, their motions to dismiss Freeman's breach-of-the-peace
claim (Count IV) are denied.

The Judge also denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss Freeman's
invasion-of-privacy claim (Count V).  She holds that the Defendants
invaded Freeman's privacy by "breaking into the Plaintiff's
secured, and locked garage and repossessing her Vehicle through
breaching the peace, including gaining unauthorized access to the
Plaintiff's Vehicle."  Freeman alleges that the Vehicle was in a
locked, secured residential parking garage with limited access, and
that the Defendants gained access to this secure space through
forcible entry or deceit.  Freeman also alleges that the manner in
which the Defendants repossessed the Vehicle was unlawful because
they breached the peace in violation of Minn. Stat. Section
336.9-609(b)(2).

Whether the repossession of a vehicle under these circumstances is
an intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
presents questions of fact for a jury that cannot be determined at
this early stage of the proceedings.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Wright granted in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim
(Count I), wrongful-repossession claim (Count II), and conversion
claim (Count III), and these claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Judge denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss as to
the Plaintiff's breach-of-the-peace claim (Count IV) and
invasion-of-privacy claim (Count V).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4wmvwh27 from Leagle.com.


ALTICE USA: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Honorable Sherry Kelley, ex rel., Gurdon,
Arkansas, City of, individually and o/b/o a Class of similarly
situated Cities v. Altice USA, Inc. doing business as: Suddenlink
Communications, Case No. 10-CV-21-00019 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas on March 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-06033-SOH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Altice USA, Inc., commonly known as Altice --
https://www.alticeusa.com/ -- is an American cable television
provider with headquarters in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 374-1058
          Fax: (501) 374-2222
          Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Todd M. Turner, Esq.
          ARNOEL, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A.
          501 Crittenden Street
          P.O. Box 480
          Arkadelphia, AR 71923
          Phone: (870) 246-9844
          Fax: (870) 246-9845
          Email: todd@abtt.us

The Defendant is represented by:

          Floyd Thomas Curry, Esq.
          McMILLAN, TURNER, McCORKLE, CURRY & BENNINGTON, LLP
          929 Main St.
          P.O. Box 607
          Arkadelphia, AR 71923-0607
          Phone: (870) 246-2468
          Fax: (870) 246-3851
          Email: curry@mtmc-law.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Gay Ziegenhorn, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          736 Georgia Avenue, Suite 300
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Phone: (901) 529-3005
          Fax: (901) 523-1123
          Email: jennifer.ziegenhorn@huschblackwell.com


AMERICAN CONTRACT: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Marcus Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER MARCUS, MATT KOLTNOW, and DIANNE BARTON-PAINE,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 17-11165-FDS (D. Mass.), Judge F. Dennis Saylor,
IV, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
enters Memorandum and Order on:

     (i) the cross-motions for summary judgment;
    (ii) Defendant's motion to dismiss;
   (iii) Defendant's motion to strike; and
    (iv) Defendant's motion to decertify class.

The case involves claims by current and former tournament directors
for American Contract Bridge League, Inc. ("ACBL") for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections
201-219. Section 207 of the FLSA requires employers to compensate
all non-overtime-exempt employees at not less than one-and-one-half
times their regular rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.  Those who work in bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacities are exempt from that
requirement.  The Plaintiffs contend that ACBL improperly
classified all tournament directors as exempt and thus denied them
overtime compensation to which they were entitled.

ACBL is the governing body for contract bridge in North America.
It provides staff for ACBL-sanctioned bridge tournaments.  ACBL
uses a somewhat bewildering variety of job titles and rankings.
Most ACBL employees who direct ACBL-sanctioned tournaments have the
job title of Tournament Director.  Others who direct tournaments,
however, have different job titles.  Those job titles include Field
Supervisor, Area Manager, Mentor, National Tournament Director,
Associate National Tournament Director, and Sectional Tournaments
at Clubs ("STaC") Coordinator.

Regardless of title, all ACBL employees who direct tournaments hold
a tournament-director rank that is distinct from their job title.
The ranks of tournament director, from most junior to most senior,
are Local Tournament Director, Associate Tournament Director,
Tournament Director, Associate National Tournament Director, and
National Tournament Director.  ACBL requires that all employees who
work as tournament directors, regardless of title or rank, work
approximately 270-300 tournament sessions each year.

On June 23, 2017, Marcus filed the complaint in the action.  Count
1 alleges that ACBL failed to pay overtime to Marcus and similarly
situated Plaintiffs in violation of the FLSA.  Count 2 alleges that
ACBL retaliated against Marcus in violation of the FLSA.  On Nov.
14, 2017, Marcus filed an amended complaint that added Matt Koltnow
and Dianne Barton-Paine as named Plaintiffs.

On Sept. 28, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a collective action.  Notice was issued to
"all persons who work or have worked for The American Contract
Bridge League, Inc. as a full time Tournament Director in the
period from June 23, 2014, to the present and who at any time
during that period was not paid overtime at one and one-half their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
any one-week period."  On May 29, 2019, after potential class
members consented to the action, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to recognize Marcus, Koltnow, Barton-Paine, and 16 opt-in
Plaintiffs as a collective action.

On May 11, 2020, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on
Count 1.  The Plaintiffs filed a single motion.  They contend that
they are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for unpaid
overtime under the FLSA; that a three-year limitations period,
rather than the standard two-year limitations period, applies to
their claims because the violations of the FLSA were willful; and
that they are entitled to liquidated damages because the violations
of the FLSA were not in good faith.  The Plaintiffs have not moved
for summary judgment as to Count 2, Marcus' individual claim for
retaliation under the FLSA.

ACBL filed 18 separate motions for summary judgment; with one
exception, each motion is directed to the claim of a specific
Plaintiff.  The motions are largely duplicative.  ACBL contends
that it is entitled to summary judgment on Count 1 because the
Plaintiffs were properly classified as exempt under the FLSA.  It
contends that all the Plaintiffs, regardless of the positions they
held, were properly classified as exempt under the administrative
exemption.  It further contends that the Plaintiffs who held Field
Supervisor, Area Manager, or Mentor positions were also properly
classified as exempt under the executive exemption.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime have
merit, ACBL contends that its violations of the FLSA were not
willful and therefore that the two-year limitations period applies.
It further contends that the fluctuating workweek method of
calculating overtime damages applies to the Plaintiffs' claims.

ACBL has further moved to strike portions of Marcus's affidavit
that the Plaintiffs have submitted in support of their motion for
summary judgment.  It contends that certain statements are not
based on his personal knowledge and therefore constitute
inadmissible hearsay.  It has also moved to strike Exhibit 5 and
Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts -- two
documents created by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department
of Labor -- because it contends that they are not properly
authenticated.

ACBL has also moved to decertify the class.  It contends that the
Plaintiffs are not similarly situated because they held different
positions, worked at different tournaments, had different levels of
decision-making authority, and exercised different forms and
degrees of discretion.

Finally, ACBL has moved for summary judgment as to Count 2, the
retaliation claim by Marcus.  It contends that Marcus did not
suffer an adverse employment action and that, even if he did, no
evidence in record indicates that it was causally linked to
protected activity.

Judge Saylor concludes that the Tournament Directors are not exempt
under the FLSA, but National Tournament Directors, Associate
National Tournament Directors, Field Supervisors, Area Managers,
and Mentors are subject to the administrative exemption.  He does
reach the issue of whether the STaC Coordinator is subject to an
exemption.  The Judge further concludes that the Plaintiffs'
claims, to the extent that they worked in a non-exempt position and
were wrongly denied overtime pay, are subject to a two-year
limitations period.

As to liability under Count 1, the Judge will grant the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment to the extent that it seeks to recover
unpaid overtime for the Plaintiffs who worked as salaried
Tournament Directors since April 24, 2017 (and will otherwise deny
the motion).  He will deny the Defendant's motions to the same
extent (and otherwise grant them).  As to damages under Count 1,
the Judge will grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as
to the method of calculating the Plaintiffs' overtime damages and
deny the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liquidated
damages.  In light of the disposition of the motions for summary
judgment related to Count 1, the Judge will deny as moot the
Defendant's motion to decertify the collective action.  Finally, he
will grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the
claim of retaliation by Marcus.

Accordingly, Jude Saylor orders as follows:

      1. The Defendant's Motion to Strike is granted to the extent
that it seeks to strike portions of Marcus's affidavit concerning
evidence of matters occurring after August 2016, and is otherwise
denied;
   
      2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted to
the extent that it seeks to recover unpaid overtime for plaintiffs
who worked as salaried Tournament Directors since April 24, 2017,
and is otherwise denied;

      3. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Dianne
Barton-Paine is granted;

      4. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Eric
Bell is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as to
the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      5. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Jennifer
Carmichael is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment
as to the applicable limitations period and the method of
calculating overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      6. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Susan
Doe and Terry Lavender is granted, except to the extent that it
seeks attorneys' fees and costs;

      7. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Harry
Falk is granted;

      8. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to John
Gram is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as to
the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      9. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Arleen
Harvey is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as
to the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      10. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Jeffery
Jacob is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as to
the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      11. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Matt
Koltnow is granted;

      12. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Candace
Kuschner is granted;

      13. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Peter
Marcus is granted;

      14. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Karl
Miller is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as
to the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      15. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
McKenzie Myers is granted;

      16. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Joan
Paradeis is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as
to the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      17. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Nancy
Watkins is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as
to the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      18. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Marilyn
Wells is granted;

      19. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Lynn
Yokel is granted to the extent that it seeks summary judgment as to
the applicable limitations period and the method of calculating
overtime damages, and is otherwise denied;

      20. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Claim of Kenneth
Van Cleve is granted;

      21. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Kenneth
Van Cleve is denied as moot; and

      22. The Defendant's Motion to Decertify the Class is denied
as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/6ncz66fu from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Faces Scaramuzzo ERISA Suit Over Savings Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SCARAMUZZO, individually and as a representative of a class of
beneficiaries of the American Red Cross Savings Plan v. AMERICAN
NATIONAL RED CROSS; BENEFIT PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL
RED CROSS; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:21-cv-00620 (D.D.C., March 8,
2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to control the
recordkeeping, administrative, and other fees imposed on the Plan
and passed on to all Plan participants, including the Plaintiff.

This case also arises from Defendants' imprudent selection and
retention of poorly performing Northern Trust Focus Fund ("Focus
Fund") target date investment funds in the Plan. The performance of
the Focus Funds was consistently materially worse than benchmark
indexes and comparable target date funds, both before and after
Defendants added them to the Plan lineup in 2017. These target date
funds were and are the default election if Red Cross employees did
not specify other investment choices for their 401(k)
contributions. At the end of 2019, the Plan invested over $368
million in the Focus Funds, representing 30% of the Plan's $1.2
billion overall assets under management, the suit says.

Plaintiff Scaramuzzo, individually and as a representative of a
class of participants in and beneficiaries of the American Red
Cross Savings Plan (the "Plan"), brings this action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) on behalf of the Plan against
the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

By way of example, in 2019 the Defendants caused the Plan to pay
Alight Solutions, the Plan's recordkeeper, fees amounting to $188
per participant, which is four to five times higher than the amount
that prudent fiduciaries of a 401(k) plan the size of the $1.2
billion Red Cross plan should permit.

As a result of the Defendants' imprudent and disloyal actions
and/or failures to act prudently and loyally, Plan participants
have lost tens of millions of dollars in their investment accounts
due to excessive fees and the underperforming Focus Funds. Those
losses will continue to compound over time because the Plan's
reduced asset base will forego the benefit of compounded earnings,
added the suit.

Plaintiff Scaramuzzo is a participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C.
section 1002(7) because she and her beneficiaries are or may become
eligible to receive benefits under the Plan.

Defendant American National Red Cross is a nonprofit, tax-exempt,
charitable organization headquartered in Washington, DC. The Red
Cross is the Plan Sponsor under U.S.C. section 1002(16).

The Benefit Plan Committee of the American National Red Cross is
the Plan Administrator. The Benefit Plan Committee and its
individual members exercise discretionary authority or control
regarding management of the Plan, exercise authority or control
regarding disposition of Plan assets, and/or have discretionary
authority or responsibility in the administration of the Plan.

The Plan is a "defined contribution plan." Defined contribution
plans dominate the landscape of retirement plans commonly used
today. In the private sector, such plans have largely replaced
"defined benefit plans" that were often used in the past. According
to the Investment Company Institute, Americans held $6.5 trillion
in all employer-based defined contribution retirement plans as of
September 30, 2020, of which $3.1 trillion was held in 401(k)
plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Walker , Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Todd Collins, Esq.
          Jon Lambiras, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  jlambiras@bm.net

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com

AMNEAL PHARMA: CRS Bid for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 motion for
class certification in Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19, is pending.

On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former
officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19).

Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018 amended registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax
business combination was materially false and/or misleading because
it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in
anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on October 30,
2020, and the motion is being briefed.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In Re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.

Since March 2016, multiple putative antitrust class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect
purchasers (or end-payors), and indirect resellers, as well as
individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect
purchasers, and municipalities (the "opt-out plaintiffs") against
manufacturers of generic drugs, including Impax and the Company.

The complaints allege a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize,
and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers
for various generic drugs in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, No. 2724, (E.D. Pa.)).

On May 10, 2019, Attorneys General of 43 States and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against various
manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a
conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig
bids, and allocate markets or customers for multiple generic drugs.


On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended
Complaint on behalf of 9 additional states and territories. On June
10, 2020, Attorneys General of 46 States, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Territory of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia filed a new complaint against various manufacturers and
individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for additional
generic drugs.

Plaintiff States seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. These
lawsuits have been incorporated into MDL No. 2724.

Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. In July
2020, the Court ordered certain plaintiffs' complaints regarding
three generic drug products to proceed as bellwether cases, along
with the Plaintiff States' amended complaint. No scheduling order
has yet been issued for this matter.

Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 Court
overseeing the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health &
Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et al., has entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the
case as to the settling defendants (including the Company).

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.

The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution.

On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant).

On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case
to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental,
non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled
in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental
discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing.

On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims. On
January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019.

In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs,
subject to Court approval.  

On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to
the settling defendants (including the Company). The amount of the
settlement was not material to the Company's consolidated financial
statements.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Summary Judgment Bids in Opana Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 MDL court
issued a minute entry indicating that it was taking the motions for
summary judgment under consideration and would advise the parties
if oral argument was needed.

From June 2014 to April 2015, a number of complaints styled as
class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect
purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual
complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out
plaintiffs") of Opana ER(R) were filed against Endo and Impax.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and
Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order
of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons'
Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees
Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity
Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim
Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The
Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson's
LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS
Pharmacy, Inc.

In December, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the actions to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2580).

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On
March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and served opening expert reports.

Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert
reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. On November 5,
2019, plaintiffs filed reply briefs in further support of their
motions for class certification.

On January 17, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file
joint surreply briefs in response thereto; plaintiffs filed
responses on January 24, 2020.

On February 5, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion for
leave, and entered a case schedule to which the parties jointly
stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15, 2021, which the
multi-district litigation ("MDL") court later re-set for June 7,
2021 in light of COVID-19 pandemic-related delays.

On April 15, 2020, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment. On August 19, 2020, the MDL court issued a minute entry
indicating that it was taking the motions under consideration and
would advise the parties if oral argument was needed.

Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Xyrem(R) Related Suits Transferred to California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 JPML
transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Amneal has been named as a defendant, along with Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and numerous other manufacturers of generic
versions of Jazz's Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate), in several putative
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California and the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the
generic manufacturers entered into anti-competitive agreements with
Jazz in connection with settling patent litigation related to
Xyrem(R).

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well
as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On December 16, 2020, the JPML transferred the actions to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMYRIS INC: Pays $125K to Plaintiff's Counsel in Flatischler Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company decided it was in
its and the stockholders' best interests to agree to pay $125,000
to plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of its claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by filing the Flatischler v.
Melo, et. al.

On July 24, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and the members of the Board in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (Flatischler v. Melo, et. al.).

The complaint alleged a breach of fiduciary obligation to disclose
material information to stockholders in the proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020
(Proxy), with respect to the Company's special stockholders'
meeting held on August 14, 2020 (Special Meeting), at which
stockholders were to vote to approve the conversion of all
outstanding indebtedness under the Foris Convertible Note and of
the Series E Preferred Stock held by Foris issued in the Company's
June 2020 PIPE into shares of common stock, in accordance with
Nasdaq Listing Standard Rule 5635(d). The plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Special Meeting.

On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint as moot
following the Company's filing of a supplement to the Proxy on
August 5, 2020. The Proxy supplement provided additional
information regarding the approval process of the Foris
transactions outlined above and the June 2020 PIPE, and the
relationships between the Company and its financial advisors to the
June 2020 PIPE.

Without admitting that the allegations in the complaint had any
merit, the Company decided it was in its and the stockholders' best
interests to agree to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel in full
satisfaction of its claim for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
by filing the complaint.

Three substantially similar complaints were filed: on July 28,
2020, in the United States District Court of Delaware (Sabatini v.
Amyris, Inc.); on July 31, 2020, in the Northern District of
California (Nair v. Amyris); and on August 4, 2020, in the Southern
District of New York (Chamorro v. Amyris). Amyris answered the
Chamorro case on October 19, 2020.

The plaintiffs in the Sabatini and Nair cases voluntarily dismissed
their complaints on October 8, and October 22, 2020, respectively,
and the plaintiff for the Chamorro case agreed to dismiss without
prejudice upon a nominal payment by the Company.

Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its
industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily
yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable
ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


AMYRIS INC: Securities Class Suit in California Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defnd a
securities class action suit filed in the .S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On April 3, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and its CEO, John G. Melo, and former CFO (and
current Chief Business Officer), Kathleen Valiasek, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between March 15,
2018 and March 19, 2019.

The complaint, which was amended by the lead plaintiff on September
13, 2019, alleges securities law violations based on statements and
omissions made by the Company during such period.

On October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
securities class action complaint, which was denied by the court on
October 5, 2020. The Company filed its answer to the securities
class action complaint on October 26, 2020.

Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its
industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily
yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable
ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


ANTARES PHARMA: Court Tosses Smith Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint in
the case, Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and
Fred M. Powell, Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, has been granted.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell, Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf
of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017,
inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in connection with the New Drug Application (NDA) for
XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTED(R).  

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff. On August
3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order,
setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted. Pursuant to that order,
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 9, 2018.

On November 26, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25,
2019. On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended
Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging
substantially similar claims. On September 12, 2019, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on October 28,
2019 and defendants' reply in support of their motion was filed on
November 27, 2019.

On April 28, 2020, the court dismissed the Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. The court further
ordered that plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 29,
2020 and provide the court with a form of the amended complaint
that indicates in what respect(s) it differs from the complaint
which it proposes to amend.

On May 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Third Amended Class
Action Complaint and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July
10, 2020. Briefing on defendants' motion was complete on August 25,
2020.

On February 26, 2021, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

Antares said, "If plaintiff chooses to file an appeal, it would be
due on March 29, 2021. The Company believes that the claims in the
Smith action lack merit and intends to continue to defend them
vigorously to the extent an appeal is filed."

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


APPLE FEDERAL: Davis Files Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Cheryl Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 8:21-cv-00802-PWG (D. Md., March 30, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Apple Federal Credit Union -- https://www.applefcu.org/ -- is a
U.S. credit union founded in 1956 and headquartered in Fairfax,
Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the
National Credit Union Administration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emanwel Josef Turnbull, Esq.
          Peter A Holland, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM PC
          914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 230
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Phone: (410) 280-6133
          Fax: (410) 280-8650
          Email: eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com
                 peter@hollandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1400 S. Charles St.
          Baltimore, MD 21230
          Phone: (301) 620-1016
          Fax: (301) 620-1018
          Email: usdc@legglaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Hoose Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HOOSE and SHEERA HARRIS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 5:21-cv-01676 (N.D. Calif., March 9, 2020) is a class
action arising from Apple's profiting from illegal gambling games
developed by Product Madness, Inc. and offered, sold, and
distributed by Apple through its App Store for consumers to
download and play.

Apple offers, sells, and distributes casino-style slot machines,
casino-style table games, and other common gambling games to
consumers through its App Store, which the Plaintiffs allege
constitutes illegal gambling pursuant to the law of various
states.

Plaintiff Hoose is an adult citizen and resident of the state of
New York. Plaintiff Harris is an adult citizen and resident of the
state of Ohio.

Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

ATMHS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cativo Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CATIVO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATMHS, LLC; APPLE, INC; and DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 21CV378464 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Mar. 22, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Cativo was employed by the Defendants as staff.

ATMHS, LLC is a California corporation providing manpower services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary Kletter, Esq.
          Rachel Hallam, Esq.
          KLETTER LAW
          1528 South E1 Camino Real, Suite 306
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (415) 434-3400
          E-mail: ckletter@kletterlaw.com
                  rhallam@kletterlaw.com


AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Faces Atachbarian Suit Over Stolen Drivers' Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM ATACHBARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02645 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy and
violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the
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.

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 –

         Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
         THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC
         521 Fifth Ave, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10175
         Telephone: (212) 292-4441
         Facsimile: (212) 307-4442
         E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com

AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in the
purported shareholder class action suit entitled, In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, has been granted final
approval.

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain former
officers of the Company.

The complaint was subsequently amended and recaptioned "In re Avon
Products, Inc. Securities Litigation".

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock
between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive. The
complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect
to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for
Representatives in Brazil.

Avon and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss which
the court denied.

In 2020, the parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of $14.5 million.

Approximately $2 million of the settlement was paid by the Company
(which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's
applicable insurance policies) and the remainder of the settlement
was paid by the Company's insurers.

On August 31, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on February 3, 2021, the court entered an order and
judgment granting final approval of the settlement. The time to
appeal this judgment has not yet expired.

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, 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 motion to dismiss the second
amended class action complaint in the case entitled, Einhorn v.
Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069, is pending.

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers,
and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters and 2018 Offering
Underwriters, captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No.
8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) 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. Axogen
was served on January 15, 2019.

On February 4, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulated
motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a
response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a
consolidated amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held
a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all deadlines
regarding the parties' obligations to file a case management
report. On December 4, 2019 the parties' presented oral arguments.


On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.

The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on June
22, 2020. Axogen filed a motion to dismiss on August 6, 2020. The
Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 20, 2020. The Court held
oral argument on February 25, 2021.

The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the Complaint.

AxoGen said, "The amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time."

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.

B RILEY FINANCIAL: Signs Binding Term Sheet to Settle Gaynor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company has
signed a binding term sheet to settle Gaynor v. Miller et al.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co., a broker-dealer subsidiary of B. Riley Securities
(fka FBR), as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits
alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the
offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. have been consolidated.


The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The Court ordered mediation before a federal magistrate took place
on August 6, 2019, with no resolution. In December 2019, the Court
remanded the case to state court.

In July 2020, the Company signed a binding term sheet to settle
this matter, subject to court approval which is expected to be
received in early 2021.

An accrual for the settlement is included in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


BABY TREND: Faces Oceguera Suit Over Defective Booster Seats
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA OCEGUERA and MOHAMMAD WAFAI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. BABY TREND, INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-00398 (C.D. Calif., March 5, 2021) is
a class action suit against Baby Trend for its misleading marketing
and sale of defective booster seats to the Plaintiffs and other
consumers resulting in violation of state consumer statutes and
common law.

The Plaintiffs contend that although BTI has labeled and marketed
the Booster Seats in the United States as safe for children as
small as 30 pounds and as young as three years-old, BTI has known
for more than 20 years that the Booster Seats are not safe for
child under 40 pounds and under four years-old.

Plaintiff Oceguera resides in Fresno, California, bought a BTI Yumi
Folding High Back Booster Seat on July 31, 2020 on Amazon.com.
Plaintiff Wafai resides in Sacramento, bought a BTI Yumi Folding
High Back Booster Seat on January 11, 2021 on Amazon.com. The
Plaintiffs decided to buy the Booster Seatbased in large part on
BTI's representation that it was "safe" for children as light as 30
pounds.

Baby Trend designs, manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes
the Booster Seats throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
          THE RUDD LAW FIRM
          4650 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 205
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 633-0705
          Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
          E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawla.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle Perry, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
          GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                  ggraifman@kgglaw.com

BATTERY PARK: Pastor Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Clothes Ironers
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS PASTOR and MOISES AGUILA RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BATTERY PARK
CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A BATTERY PARK CLEANERS) and DONG S. SONG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02720 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees
appropriate minimum wages and overtime for all hours worked and
failing to provide them with accurate payroll records and wage
statements.

Plaintiffs Pastor and Ramirez were employed as clothes ironers at
Battery Park Cleaners located at 2 South End Avenue, New York, New
York from approximately April 1, 2019 until on or about January 4,
2021 and from approximately June 2018 until on or about October 19,
2020, respectively.

Battery Park Cleaners Inc. is a company that owns and operates a
dry cleaner under the name Battery Park Cleaners located at 2 South
End Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

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

BAYARDS ALE: Manjarrez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO MANJARREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BAYARDS ALE HOUSE LLC, 218 EAST 52ND ST RESTAURANT LLC,
and NIALL MORAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01968 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Corporate Defendant is the owner of three restaurants --
Bayard's West Village, Rosie Dunn's, and Niall's on 52nd --
locations in Manhattan, which are engaged in the business of
serving food, and drinks to customers the State of New York.

The Defendants employ cooks, dishwashers, bartenders, servers, and
other employees in both the front and back of the house all of whom
are paid less than required under federal and New York State Labor
Law for their work each day. The Plaintiff contends that he worked
in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beeman Sues Over Crop Inputs' Price Control
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BEEMAN BERRY FARM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff 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., Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-00719-PJS-TNL (D. Minn., March 17, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust laws, state unfair competition laws, consumer protection
laws, and unjust enrichment laws.

The Plaintiff has purchased one or more Crop Inputs, for its own
use of its farming operation and not for resale, that was
manufactured or sold by one or more Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of executing an unlawful
agreement between them to artificially increase and fix the price
of Crop Inputs, ranging from seeds to crop protection chemicals
such as pesticides used by farmers. By seeking to channel purchases
of their Crop Inputs through either their own digital platforms or
through traditional agricultural wholesale and retailers, the
Manufacturer Defendants artificially increase the prices of Crop
Inputs. In addition, the Manufacturer Defendants maintain a
competitive advantage over the Wholesale and Retail Defendants who
are economically dependent upon large rebates from the Manufacturer
Defendants tied to sales goals, the suit says.

Accordingly, the Defendants established a secretive distribution
process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive
levels by denying farmers access to relevant market information
that would allow comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing
decisions, as well as information about seed relabeling practices
that 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, added the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' business activities
substantially affected interstate trade and commerce in the U.S.
and caused injury in the U.S.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of the Classes to
recover actual and compensatory damages as well as three times
actual damages, treble damages, interest, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, and to secure injunctive relief pursuant to the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Civil RICO),
and Clayton Act.

The Defendants are manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
Crop Inputs. Defendants BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, Inc.,
Corteva, Inc., and Syngenta Corporation are manufacturers of Crop
Inputs. Defendants Cargill Incorporated, Univar Solutions, Inc.,
and Winfield Solutions, LLC are wholesalers of Crop Inputs. CHS
Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., Growmark Inc., Nutrien Ag
Solutions Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub. Inc., and Tenkoz Inc. are
retailers for Crop Inputs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Mencel, Esq.
          MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN
          2116 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Tel: (612) 746-4646
          Fax: (612) 454-2678
          E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com
                  jon@westrikeback.com
                  filing@westrikeback.com

                - and –

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market St., Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 496-0300
          Fax: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Eagle Alleges Price Rigging of Crop Inputs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake Farms Partnership, on behalf of itself individually and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 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., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00543, (D.
Minn., February 24, 2021), is a class action that arises from an
unlawful agreement between Defendants (manufacturers, wholesalers,
and retailers of Crop Inputs) to artificially increase and fix the
prices of seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides,
herbicides and insecticides used by farmers.

Bayer CropScience, Corteva Syngenta Corporation and BASF are
manufacturers of crop input while Cargill, Winfield, Univar
Solutions, CHS, Nutrien AG Solutions, Growmark, Simplot AB Retail,
Tenkoz and Federated Co-Operatives are its wholesalers and
retailers.

Eagle Lake Farms alleges that Defendants' distribution process
keeps crop input prices in inflated anti-competitive levels, denied
farmers access to relevant market information, including
transparent pricing terms that would allow competition 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. Defendants allegedly
conspired and coordinated to boycott online Crop Inputs sales
platforms because of the threat they posed to their market position
and price control. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      Chad A. Carder, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Email: jgittleman@barrack.com
             ccarder@barrack.com

             - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
      2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (800)-551-8649
      Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Merriman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MERRIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02227-RMI (N.D. Cal.,
March 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the California Song-Beverly Act, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law,
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and false advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Seresto brand
flea and tick collars. The Defendants knew about the harm that
their products can cause to pets but failed to disclose or
otherwise inform consumers of the risks. Had the Defendants
disclosed the existence of the serious safety risks associated with
Seresto Collars, including significant hair loss, welts, itching,
and vomiting, the Plaintiffs and Class members would not have
purchased the product for their pets or else would have paid
significantly less for it, added the suit.

Bayer Healthcare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products, headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.

Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         William A. Ladnier, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: will@gregcolemanlaw.com

BIWATER INC: Aispuro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER AISPURO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIWATER INC., JORG MENNINGMANN,
RICHARD WHITE, PAUL STEVENS, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV12102 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code and California 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 unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an inspector from on or
around late 2017 until March 2020.

Biwater Inc. is a water treatment solutions company with its
principal place of business in Rancho Cucamonga, 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

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Continues to Defend Boyd Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation 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 Bluegreen
Vacations Unlimited (BVU) continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Eddie Boyd.

On July 18, 2019, Eddie Boyd, et al. filed an action alleging that
BVU and co-defendants violated the Missouri Merchandise Practices
Act for allegedly making false statements and misrepresentations
with respect to the sale of vacation ownership interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs further have filed a purported class action allegation
that BVU's charging of an administrative processing fee constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law, and have also asserted that the
company and its outside counsel engaged in abuse of process by
filing a lawsuit against plaintiffs' counsel (The Montgomery Law
Firm).

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

On August 31, 2020, the court certified a class regarding the
unauthorized practice of law claim and dismissed the claims
regarding abuse of process.

On January 11, 2021, the Court issued an order that the class
members are not entitled to rescission of their contracts because
they have failed to plead fraud in the inducement.

Bluegreen said, "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend
to move to decertify the class."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen Bid for Class Certification Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation 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 motion for
class certification in the purported class action suit initiated by
Kenneth Johansen, is pending.

On July 14, 2020, Kenneth Johansen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Specifically, the named plaintiff alleges that he received numerous
telemarketing calls from BVU while he was on the National Do Not
Call Registry.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, and plaintiff in response
filed an amended complaint on September 18, 2020.

On February 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification seeking to certify a class of thousands of individual
proposed class members.

Bluegreen said, "We intend to oppose the class certification and
vigorously defend the action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation 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 company
continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by
Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin
law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law
prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that we failed to disclose the
identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of our
initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented
who the seller of the real property was; that the company
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company
included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only"
incentive to purchase; and that the company utilizes an illegal
referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership
interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from the company one or more VOIs
within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The company moved to dismiss the case, and on November 27, 2019,
the Court issued a ruling granting the motion in part.

Bluegreen said, "We have answered the remaining claims. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action."

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Settlement in Hernandez Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation 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 settlement in
the putative class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and
Estella Michael, has been granted final approval.

On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a
purported class action lawsuit in San Bernardino Superior Court
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014.

The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018,
include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination
and to provide meal and rest periods, claims relating to
non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses,
and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act.

In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter
for an immaterial amount.

Final approval of the settlement was granted by the court on
January 21, 2021.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wijesinha Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation 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 purported
class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha, has remain
stayed.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"), specifically that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited
called plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an
automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his
express written consent to do so. Plaintiffs seek certification of
a class comprised of other persons in the United States who
received similar calls from or on behalf of BVU without the
person's consent.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The comapany believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a
separate action brought against a VOI company by a plaintiff
alleging violations of the TCPA.

On January 7, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling consistent
with BVU's position, and on June 26, 2020, the FCC also issued a
favorable ruling.

The case currently remains stayed.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.

BRIDGE LOCATIONS: Faces Barnes Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridge Locations LLC.
The case is captioned as Tyshawn Barnes, an individual, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Bridge Locations LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00295839-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., March 5, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Bridge Locations is a Premier Branded Partner for Xfinity. The
Company provides outstanding service experiences by connecting
customers with technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          180 Broadway, Ste 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101-5064
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: Alex@DychterLaw.com

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Denial of Class Cert. in Freight Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC 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 U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed
a District Court's denial of class certification in the class
action suit entitled, In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation
of the antitrust laws.

The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages. These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in
the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

(In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed
against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April
2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by
the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads
appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the
District Court's class certification decision and remanded the case
to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class. On October 10, 2017, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The plaintiffs
appealed the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing on the
appeal of the denial of class certification.  

On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's denial of class certification.  

The Company continues to believe that these allegations are without
merit and will continue to vigorously dispute any such claims in
any subsequent litigation by individual parties involving such
allegations.  

The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, or liquidity.

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

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides freight rail transportation services in North America. The
company was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
As of February 22, 2019, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of National Indemnity Company.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Fralish ECOA Suit in N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One NA. The
case is captioned as Fralish v. Capital One NA and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00162-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind., March 5,
2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.[BN]

Plaintiff John Fralish for himself and all others similarly
situated is represented by:

          Alexander J. Darr, Esq.
          DARR LAW LLC
          1391 W 5th Ave Ste 313
          Columbus, OH 43212
          Telephone: (312) 857-3277
          Facsimile: (855) 225-3277
          E-mail: Darr@Darr.Law

CARSON SMITHFIELD: Rhoden Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield,
LLC. The case is styled as Nikkea Rhoden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carson Smithfield, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01714 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2021).

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

Carson Smithfield is a debt collection agency located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


CBS CORPORATION: Construction Laborers Seek to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONSTRUCTION LABORERS
PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, GENE SAMIT and JOHN LANTZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CBS
CORPORATION and LESLIE MOONVES, Case No. 1:18-cv-07796-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Construction Laborers Pension Trust
for Southern California asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff to serve as Class Representative;
      and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as Class

      Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The Laborers Southern California Trust Fund was established to
manage the operations of the Laborers Health and Welfare, Pension,
Vacation and Training and Retraining Trust Funds for Southern
California.

CBS Corporation comprised the over-the-air television (CBS and The
CW) broadcasting, television production and distribution,
publishing, pay-cable, basic cable, and recording assets that were
previously owned by the first Viacom. It was the world's eighth
largest entertainment company in terms of revenue, and
headquartered at the CBS Building in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fJKU0j
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
          Laura Andracchio, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  vserra@rgrdlaw.com
                  spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
                  llargent@rgrdlaw.com
                  landracchio@rgrdlaw.com

CENTRAL CONGREGATIONS: Faces Lojano Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL LOJANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL CONGREGATIONS OF YETEV LEV D'SATMAR,
JOHN DOE and JOE SHMOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01712
(E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime wages and spread of hours premium for
all hours worked and failing to provide them with accurate payroll
records and wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance
person from approximately March 2012 until on or about July 2016
and from approximately October 2016 until on or about March 2020.

Central Congregations of Yetev Lev D'Satmar is a synagogue located
at 164 Skillman St, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

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

CENTRAL SQUARE: Doughty Data Breach Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA DOUGHTY,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
CENTRAL SQUARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and CITY OF NORMAN, OKLAHOMA, a
municipal corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00500-G (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a "Nationwide Class" consisting of:

      "All persons whose payment card information was compromised
      in the data breach affecting Central Square Technologies,
      Inc.'s Click2Gov payment platform occurring between August
      and October 2019;

   2. appointing Laura Doughty as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Federman & Sherwood as Class Counsel in this
      action.

Central Square data security measures to protect the payment card
data and other personal information of Class Members, resulting in
the second widespread data breach of its Click2Gov payment portal
in three years. As a result of deficient security protocols and
practices, Class Members' data was at heightened risk of being, or
has been, stolen by cyber hackers who gained unauthorized access to
CentralSquare's systems.

The City of Norman collected monthly "convenience fees" from
members of the Norman Subclass to provide for the security of the
payment card transactions, thus establishing a market for charging
online utility payment portal users for the data security of their
payment card information.

Despite the prior cybersecurity attacks on CentralSquare's
Click2Gov payment portal that compromised the payment card data of
hundreds of thousands of people, Norman turned a blind eye and
failed to fully guard against the possibility of another data
breach.

CentralSquare creates software platforms for local governments and
public safety agencies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u9uFxm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant Central Square are:

          David M. Lisi, Esq.
          Cathleen Donohoe, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Gans, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          2550 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 233-4500
          Facsimile: (650) 233-4545
          E-mail: David.Lisi@Pillsburylaw.com
                  Cathleen.Donohoe@Pillsburylaw.com
                  Jeffrey.Gans@Pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Ottaway, Esq.
          Amy Sherry Fischer, Esq.
          201 Robert S. Kerr Avenue, 12th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-4633
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3462
          E-mail: larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com
                  amyfischer@oklahomacounsel.com

Attorney for the Defendant City of Norman, Oklahoma, are:

          Rickey J. Knighton, II, Esq.
          Assistant City Attorney
          P.O. Box 370
          201 West Gray
          Norman, OK 73069
          Telephone: (405) 217-7700
          Facsimile: (405) 366-5425
          E-mail: Rick.knighton@normanok.gov

CHAD WOLF: Court Tosses Kikvadze Bid to Certify Matter as Urgent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA KIKVADZE v. CHAD
WOLF, Case No. 1:21-cv-00154-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge
H.L. Perez-Montes entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Kikvadze
motion to certify matter as urgent and consequently an expedited
decision.

Judge Perez-Montes said, "Kikvadze is not entitled to expedited
consideration of his Petition." Because Kikvadze cannot show that
he is uniquely entitled expedited consideration of his Petition.

Kikvadze is a detainee in the custody of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained at the LaSalle Detention Center
in Jena, Louisiana. He seeks his release from custody due to
prolonged detention and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kikvadze is a native and citizen of Georgia who was ordered removed
on June 3, 2020. Kikvadze alleges that his detention is
unconstitutional as it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment and violates Zadvydas v. Davis , 533
U.S. 678 (2001).

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cAQ9xc at no extra charge.[CC]




CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Dismissal of Benitez Claims Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas
HealthCare System, d/b/a Atrium Health, Defendants-Appellee, Case
No. 19-2145 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirms the district court's order granting Hospital
Authority's motion for summary judgment and dismissing all claims
against it.

Mr. Benitez -- who had been treated at a Hospital Authority
inpatient facility in 2016 -- filed a class action complaint
against the Hospital Authority, alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.  He alleges the Hospital Authority is the second
largest public health system in the United States.  It is also,
Benitez asserts, the largest inpatient healthcare provider in the
Charlotte, North Carolina area, with approximately twelve million
patient encounters every year.  Because of this, it receives more
than 50% of all inpatient revenue in the Charlotte area.

According to Benitez, insurers recognize the Hospital Authority's
large market share and -- out of necessity -- contract with the
Hospital Authority so that Charlotte-area residents can easily
receive inpatient services.  Thus, in reaching these contractual
agreements, the Hospital Authority's "market power has enabled it
to negotiate high prices (in the form of high reimbursement rates)
for treating insured patients."  Additionally, Benitez claims the
Hospital Authority "has imposed steering restrictions in its
contracts with insurers."  He alleges these provisions are
anticompetitive because they preclude "insurers from providing
financial incentives to patients to encourage them to consider
utilizing lower-cost but comparable or higher quality alternative
healthcare providers."  And without such incentives, patients are
effectively required to go to the Hospital Authority where the
rates are higher.

Previously, the United States Department of Justice and the North
Carolina Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit in the Western
District of North Carolina, seeking a declaration that the steering
restrictions violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act and an injunction
prohibiting the Hospital Authority from seeking, agreeing to or
enforcing any steering restrictions in its insurance contracts --
United States v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., d/b/a Carolinas
Healthcare Sys., No. 3:16-cv-00311-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. June 9, 2016).
After several years of litigation, the Enforcement Action was
resolved by a settlement that prohibited steering restrictions.

With claims that mirrored, in large part, the allegations made in
the ongoing Enforcement Action, Benitez also asserted that the
Hospital Authority's steering restrictions violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.  On top of declaratory and injunctive relief,
however, Benitez also sought monetary damages on behalf of a class
of individuals residing in the Charlotte area who made direct
payments for inpatient procedures to the Hospital Authority.

The Hospital Authority answered, disputing Benitez's factual
allegations, defending the legality of the steering restrictions
and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses.  Additionally, the
Hospital Authority moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that it was immune from monetary damages because it was a "special
function governmental unit" -- and, therefore, a "local government"
-- under the Act.  To that end, it relied in large part on
Sandcrest, which -- according to the Hospital Authority -- held
that a North Carolina municipal hospital was a "local government"
exempt from monetary damages under the Act.

The district court found that the Hospital Authority is a "local
government" and, therefore, immune from monetary damages.  The
district court then stayed Benitez's claim for injunctive relief
pending a resolution of the Enforcement Action.  After the
Enforcement Action settled, the Hospital Authority filed a renewed
motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Benitez did not oppose.
The district court granted the motion, dismissing all claims
against the Hospital Authority.

The appeal involves the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15
U.S.C. Section 34, et seq.  Congress passed the Act "in order to
broaden the scope of antitrust immunity applicable to local
governments" after a surge in the filing of antitrust lawsuits
threatened to "undermine a local government's ability to govern in
the public interest."  Although the Act does not preclude
injunctive or declaratory claims, it immunizes "local governments"
from antitrust damages.  Now, the Court considers whether the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority qualifies as a "local
government" under the Act.

The Act defines "local government" in two ways.  First, the Act
covers traditional subdivisions of a state, such as "a city,
county, parish, township, village, or any other general function
governmental unit established by State law."  That provision does
not apply in the case.  Second, the Act applies to more specialized
governmental entities, such as "a school district, sanitary
district, or any other special function governmental unit
established by State law in one or more states."  The Court must
decide if the Hospital Authority falls into the final category -- a
"special function governmental unit established by State law in one
or more states."

After the Hospital Authority moved for judgment on the pleadings,
the district court concluded that it was such an entity and,
therefore, dismissed the class action antitrust claims brought by
Benitez against the Hospital Authority.

Mr. Benitez now appeals on two grounds.  First, he argues that the
Hospital Authority is not a "local government," and, therefore, not
covered by the Act because it lacks the powers traditionally
associated with "local governments," such as the power to tax and
issue general obligation bonds.  Second, he contends that, even if
the Hospital Authority at one time qualified as a "special function
governmental unit," it has now grown so large -- by operating in
three states and generating $11 billion in annual revenue -- that
it can no longer be considered a "local government."

As to Benitez's first argument, the Fourth Circuit disagrees.  It
opines that the Congress' broad definition of "local government"
does not impose the requirements he advances, and it declines to
rewrite the Act to include those requirements.  As to Benitez's
second argument, while not addressed by the district court, it also
fails.  Despite having some common-sense appeal, it again seeks a
limitation not contained in the Act.  Accordingly, the Fourth
Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mujtnpmm from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Eric Franklin Citron, GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., in
Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant.

James P. Cooney, III -- jim.cooney@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, in Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Robert Stephen Berry -- sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- BERRY
LAW PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Tejinder Singh --
tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com -- GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C., Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant.

Debbie W. Harden -- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Mark J. Horoschak,
Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Matthew F. Tilley,
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Hampton
Y. Dellinger, Richard A. Feinstein, Nicholas A. Widnell, BOIES
SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Appellee.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Storage Tank-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, 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 a settlement has been
reached by the parties in the lawsuit related to cryobiological
storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11).

Chart was named in a purported class action lawsuit filed during
the second quarter of 2018 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against the Company and other defendants with respect to the
alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank (model
FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The Toronto Institute for Reproductive
Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.

A settlement has been reached by the parties in the lawsuit with no
material effect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settlement Talks on Royalties Suits Reopened
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation 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 parties in
the class action suits related to the alleged underpayment of
royalties have reopened settlement discussions.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and
purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on
behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages
related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the
divestiture of substantially all of the company's midstream
business and most of the company's gathering assets in 2012 and
2013.

These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to
violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral
rights, intentional interference with contractual relations, and
violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas
mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources.

These lawsuits seek in aggregate compensatory, consequential,
treble, and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of
profits, declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the company's
royalty payment practices, pre-and post-judgment interest, and
attorney's fees and costs.

On December 20, 2017 and August 9, 2018, the company reached
tentative settlements to resolve all Pennsylvania civil royalty
cases for a total at that time of approximately $36 million.

Subsequent to the company's bankruptcy Filing the parties reopened
settlement discussions.

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

Chesapeake Energy Corporation engages in the acquisition,
exploration, and development of properties for the production of
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGL) from underground
reservoirs in the United States. Chesapeake Energy Corporation was
founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CIGNA BEHAVIORAL: C.D. California Narrows Claims in RJ ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RJ, Plaintiff v. CIGNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and
denied in part the separate motions to dismiss brought by Cigna and
Viant, Inc.

In the putative class action suit, Plaintiff "RJ," as the
representative of her beneficiary son, SJ, challenges Defendant
Cigna's alleged failure to reimburse covered mental health provider
claims at the usual, customary, and reasonable ("UCR") rates.

SJ is a member of a Cigna-administered employee benefit plan of
which he is a beneficiary.  The Plan is funded by the Plaintiff's
employer and is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  SJ sought treatment for behavioral health
disorders, including for mental health and substance use disorders,
from Summit Estate, Inc., a licensed and accredited treatment
provider.  The healthcare provider contacted Cigna to verify
out-of-network benefits and was told that benefits were paid at 70%
of UCR rates until the Plaintiff's out of pocket cost sharing
responsibilities were met, and thereafter benefits were paid at UCR
rates calculated according to the "MRC-1 methodology."

Based upon Summit Estate's prior dealings with Cigna and upon the
representations made on the phone call and on the plain language of
the Plaintiff's employer benefit plan, it was understood by all
parties that 100% of MRC-1 was equivalent to 100% of the billed
charges of Summit Estate.  Based on Cigna's representations and
with an understanding of the plain terms of the employer benefit
plan, SJ and his IOP provider contracted for SJ to receive
treatment.  This contract obligated SJ to pay for any portion of
the bills for services not paid by Cigna.

Notwithstanding Cigna's representations, Cigna sent every claim at
issue in the case to Viant for repricing.  Viant purported to offer
payments at UCR rates, but in reality, the amount offered bore no
relationship to UCR rates as that term is defined in SJ's Cigna
policy.  It offered essentially the same flat, lower rate that it
offers across the entire country.  This rate is the "product of a
secret, proprietary, database and/or pricing method."  For every
dollar Viant "saved" Cigna, Viant received a kick-back.

Cigna never told Plaintiff SJ or his IOP provider that claims were
subject to third party repricing until after SJ and his IOP
provider entered into a contract for treatment.  SJ does not have
any agreement with Viant that would permit Viant to negotiate with
providers on his behalf.  As a result of Cigna's and Viant's
actions, Cigna allowed only $6,225.12 of the $51,175 billed for IOP
services (or 12% of billed charges).  SJ was left responsible for
the balance.  SJ paid the amount owing on the balance bill directly
to his provider.  Cigna did not issue an "adverse benefit
determination" in an Explanation of Benefits ("EOB") letter, and
consequently SJ is unable to appeal the underpayment under ERISA.

The Plaintiff asserts the following claims on behalf of SJ: (1)
violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) against both
Defendants; (2) underpayment of benefits in violation of ERISA
Section 502(a)(l)(B) against Cigna; (3) breach of plan provisions
in violation of ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) against Cigna; (4)
failure to provide accurate materials and a request for declaratory
and injunctive relief against Cigna in violation of ERISA Section
502(c); (5) violation of fiduciary duties of loyalty and duty of
care under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) and a request for declaratory
and injunctive relief against Cigna; (6) violation of fiduciary
duty of full and fair review under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) and a
request for declaratory and injunctive relief against Cigna; (7)
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to ERISA Section
502(a)(3) against both Defendants; and for (8) "Other Appropriate
Equitable Relief" against both Defendants under ERISA Section
502(a)(3).

Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss; one brought
by Cigna and Viant.  Cigna argues that the Complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety.

Specifically, Cigna contends that (1) as to the second claim for
underpayment of benefits and third claim for breach of plan
provisions, the Plaintiff does not identify any terms in her ERISA
Plan that required Cigna to pay Summit Estate's claim at 100% of
the billed charges, and in fact, the Plan does not require Cigna to
pay at that rate; (2) the fourth claim for failure to provide
accurate materials cannot be maintained against Cigna because Cigna
is not the plan administrator; (3) the fifth claim for violation
for fiduciary duties is duplicative; (4) the sixth claim for
violation of fiduciary duties is duplicative, cannot be asserted
against Cigna because Cigna is not the Plan, and the Plaintiff
cannot show entitlement to 100% of the billed charges; (5) the
seventh and eighth claims are duplicative; and (6) the RICO claim
fails because the Plaintiff does not plausibly allege an
association-in-fact enterprise and predicate acts.

Viant seeks dismissal of the three claims pled against it, namely
the RICO claim and the seventh and eighth claims for equitable
relief.  It contends that all three claims sound in fraud and are
subject to dismissal for failure to plead fraud with the requisite
particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
As to the RICO claim, Viant argues that the Plaintiff fails to
allege with particularity a pattern of racketeering activity and an
association-in-fact enterprise.

Judge Davila granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss as to the
first, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth claims.  The first,
seventh and eighth claims are dismissed with leave to amend; the
fourth and sixth claims are dismissed without leave to amend.  The
Defendants' motions are denied as to the remaining claims.

Among othner things, Judge Davila finds that the allegations are
sufficient to plead not only the existence of an ERISA plan but
also a Plan provision requiring Cigna to pay benefits calculated
according to the MRC-1 methodology.  He says although the Plaintiff
does not cite to a specific Plan term or provision by page or
paragraph, that level of detail is not required at the pleading
stage.  Further, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations
are sufficient to give rise to a "reasonable inference that Cigna
is liable" for medical care covered by the terms of an ERISA plan"
at UCR rates calculated under the MRC I methodology.  Lastly, at
the pleading stage, Cigna cannot rely on the notation in the
revised EOB to prove it properly paid benefits calculated using the
MRC methodology.  For these reasons, Cigna's motion to dismiss the
second and third claims for benefits is denied.

The Judge also finds that although the Plaintiff's claims for
benefits and breach of fiduciary duty overlap substantially, the
latter is not just a "repackaging" of the former.  In the breach of
fiduciary duty claim, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, as well as removal of Cigna as a fiduciary.
The Plaintiff alleges that separate and apart from the denial of
benefits, Cigna breached its duty as a fiduciary by, among other
things, sending EOBs containing misrepresentations, failing to
provide accurate information about the methodology applied to
calculate UCR rates, and failing to disclose that Cigna would
utilize Viant as a repricing agent.  Further, unlike in Ihde v.
United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 2017 WL 5444551, at *8 (D. Colo.
Nov. 14, 2017), the Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim may
entitle her to equitable relief, separate and apart from an award
of benefits.  Hence, Cigna's motion to dismiss the fifth claim is
denied.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request to add Intuit as a
party-defendant without prejudice to filing a separate motion
seeking such relief consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/438k998v from Leagle.com.


CLASSIC PARTY: Court Dismisses Blair Class Suit With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZACHARY BLAIR, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff
v. CLASSIC PARTY RENTALS, INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01194-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants
Apollo Entities' motion to dismiss.

The matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint brought on behalf of Defendants Apollo Global
Management, Inc.; Apollo Centre Street Partnership, L.P.; Apollo
Franklin Partnership, L.P.; Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV
LP; Apollo SK Strategic Investments, L.P.; Apollo Special
Opportunities Managed Account, L.P.; and Apollo Zeus Strategic
Investments, L.P.'s ("Apollo Entities").

Plaintiff Blair originally filed his complaint in Stanislaus County
Superior Court on Dec. 7, 2017.  Therein, the Plaintiff alleges
that at all relevant times, he was employed by Defendant Classic
Party Rentals, Inc. and/or DOES as a non-exempt, hourly general
associate and assistant driver in California.  Defendant Classic
Party Rentals, a now defunct event and party rental company, did
not comply with California wage and hour laws, wage order, or the
California Labor Code.

For at least four years prior to the filing of the complaint,
Defendant Classic Party Rentals had a consistent policy and/or
practice of not paying the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
for all the hours that they worked, including before they clocked
in and after they clocked out for their work shifts and during
unpaid meal periods.  Further, the Defendant had a continuous and
widespread policy of shaving the time which the Plaintiff, and
those similarly situated, actually worked.

During this same time period, the Defendant would clock out the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated during 30-minute meal
periods, even though they were allowed to work during those
periods.  Defendant Classic Party Rentals also failed to provide
all straight time and overtime wages owed to non-exempt employees,
as mandated under the California Labor Code.  Further, it had a
policy of requiring the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
work through meal periods and to work at least five hours without a
meal period.  The Defendant did not have a policy of allowing
hourly workers working shifts of ten or more hours in a day to take
a second meal break, nor did they allow workers who worked over
four hours to take a 10-minute rest period.  Finally, the Defendant
willfully failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
timely pay wages owed to terminated employees, and maintain
accurate time records.

On Dec. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to identify
DOE Defendants 2 and 3 as Bright Event Rentals, LLC and Hartman
Studios, Inc., doing business as Standard Party Rentals.  On March
12, 2020, the Plaintiff again amended his complaint to identify
DOES 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as the Apollo Entities listed
above.

On Aug. 24, 2020, Defendants Apollo Entities removed the case from
the Stanislaus County Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446).  On
Sept. 23, 2020, Defendants Apollo Entities filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against them.  On Oct. 20, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On Oct.
27, 2020, the Defendants filed their reply.

As an initial matter, to be held liable for any violations under
the California Labor Code, Defendants Apollo Entities must be the
Plaintiff's employer. The Plaintiff added the Apollo Entities as
Defendants in the action because at least one of them allegedly
owned Classic Party Rentals from 2014 to 2017.  Thus, the gravamen
of the Plaintiff's argument is that because the Defendants owned
Classic Party Rentals, they are liable as joint employers of the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

Judge Drozd holds that the Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of
factual allegations explaining how the Apollo Entities meet any of
the definitions of an employer in California.  He says, their
complaint consists of conclusory allegations and recitations of the
legal standard for employment, but nowhere does it allege any
specific facts explaining how Defendants Apollo Entities meet any
of the requirements for being considered a joint employer of the
Plaintiff or those similarly situated.  Thus, the Plaintiff's
allegations are "disparate and indiscriminate in nature and fail to
make out a joint employer claim."

Moreover, the Plaintiff has advanced no such specific allegations
as to how the Apollo Entities participated in any unlawful
decisions or how they had the power to prevent any of the actions
allegedly taken by Classic Party Rentals.  The Plaintiff argues
that the pleading standard is readily met where he pleads facts
alleged upon information and belief and that belief is based on
factual information that makes the inference of culpability
plausible.  However, he has not pled any, let alone sufficient,
factual information from which any inference can be plausibly drawn
which would make Apollo Entities liable as a joint employer.
Merely receiving the benefit of the employees' work is not enough
to establish liability under a joint employer theory.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's current factual allegations
lack the specificity necessary to put Defendants Apollo Entities on
notice as to how they might be liable for the actions alleged in
the complaint.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state a
cognizable claim under the suffer or permit prong of Martinez
against Defendants Apollo Entities, whose motion to dismiss will
therefore be granted.

Regarding whether leave to amend should be granted, the Defendants
argue that the Apollo funds invest in portfolio companies; but the
companies have separate managers.  The Plaintiff would have no good
faith basis to allege that the Apollo Entities were controlling the
day-to-day working conditions of the Classic Party Employees.  The
Defendants therefore contend that the Plaintiff is unable to cure
the deficiencies of his complaint as to them.

Judge Drozd is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument in this
regard.  Defendants Apollo Entities were added to the Plaintiff's
complaint only after he learned that one of the Apollo Entities
previously owned Classic Party Rentals.  It is therefore
understandable that the Plaintiff may not have had sufficient
information at the time he originally filed his complaint to allow
him to adequately plead specific facts about how the Apollo
Entities were or were not involved in any alleged wrongdoing.
Under these circumstances, the Judge cannot conclude that the
granting of leave to amend would be futile and the Plaintiff will
be granted leave to file an amended complaint if he is able to do
so in good faith.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd grants the motion to dismiss brought on
behalf of Defendants Apollo Entities.  Any amended complaint the
Plaintiff may elect to file will be filed within 14 days of service
of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2yc6thjn from Leagle.com.


CLEAN HARBOR: Smith Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALONZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00292526,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on March 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00585-TLN-AC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses, and failure to provide wages when due.

Clean Harbor Environmental Services, Inc. is a provider of
environmental and industrial services, headquartered in Norwell,
Massachusetts. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Nicole A. Naleway, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Suite 1500
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298

CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the lawsuit
related to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016
remains pending.

In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an
allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a
price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose
material information about the 2016 Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger
Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

- Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

- Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

- Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

- L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel,
and dismissed the investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per
agreement of the parties.

Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. The
three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish
were captioned as follows:

- Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

- Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098
(filed November 19, 2014), and

- Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action
jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in
Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. By operation of the December 2014 order of the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, the Butler,
Cashen, and Creative Life Services actions were consolidated into
the actions pending in Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District
Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July
2015.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) voted to approve the
2016 Merger before the Court could consider the plaintiffs'
peremptory exceptions.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.

The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition
and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request
for preliminary and permanent
injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a
defendant. The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
fourth amended Petition. In September 2016, the District Court
granted the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action
and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana
Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana
Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of
action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December
21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as
defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only
remaining defendants certain former executive officers and
independent directors.

The District Court denied the defendants' exceptions on January 14,
2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
class was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the
hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited
class. On September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class
limited to shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting,
or did not vote on the 2016 Merger.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

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

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.

COLT BBQ & SPIRITS: Kapzynski Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kapzynski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Colt BBQ & Spirits LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-08040 (D. Ariz., February 24, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Colt Grill operates several restaurants in Arizona where Kapzynski
was an hourly employee of Colt Grill from July 2020 to December
2020. Kapzynski claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40
hours in a week but was not paid the proper overtime rate for all
of these hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      PARMET PC
      3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 999-5228
      Fax: (713) 999-1187
      Email: matt@parmet.law

             - and -

      Jason P. Hoelscher, Esq.
      SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS LLP
      802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 98401
      Phone: (361) 653-3300
      Fax: (361) 653-3333
      Email: jhoelscher@shhlaw.com


COMPUTER CAREER: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Career
Center, L.P. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Computer Career
Center, L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-02692 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021).

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

Computer Career Center, L.P. also known as Vista College --
https://www.vistacollege.edu/ -- operates as an university. The
University offers career, educational, and financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CONTRACT CALLERS: Court Dismisses Mixon FDCPA Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL MIXON, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTRACT CALLERS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02069 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants Contract Callers' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Mixon brings the putative class action against Contract
Callers pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA").

Ms. Mixon defaulted on a debt that she owed to her cellular service
provider, T-Mobile.  A debt collection agency called Receivables
Performance Management, LLC sent Mixon a letter on June 30, 2017,
attempting to collect that debt.  More than two years later on
Sept. 23, 2019, Contract Callers sent Mixon a second letter about
this debt.

That letter included information about the debt, such as the
identity of the creditor (T-Mobile), the account number, and the
current balance owed.  It also said that Contract Callers could
obtain a "copy of a judgment" for Mixon to verify the debt.  The
Contract Callers letter did not indicate that any statute of
limitations had elapsed, nor did it inform Mixon that action on her
part, such as partial payment, could expose her to liability even
if the statute of limitations had lapsed.  Because this was a form
letter, Mixon believes that similar letters were sent to more than
40 recipients.

Ms. Mixon argues that the letter from Contract Callers was "false
or misleading" as defined by the FDCPA in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.
She also argues that it amounted to an "unfair or unconscionable"
means of collecting a debt, per 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, because it
"attempted to collect a time-barred debt without informing the
Plaintiff that she could not be sued on the debt" or "that certain
actions such as payments could reset the statute of limitations."
This claim is premised on the argument that the debt is subject to
a two-year federal statute of limitations.  That statute of
limitations can be found in the Federal Communications Act
("FCA").

Contract Callers has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Neither T-Mobile nor Contract Callers has filed suit against Mixon
over this debt.  However, Contract Callers argues that it could
file breach of contract, account stated, or quantum meruit claims
in Illinois state court because such state law causes of action are
subject to five- or ten-year statutes of limitations under Illinois
law, not the two-year federal statute of limitations.  Therefore,
Contract Callers argues collection of Mixon's debt was not
time-barred when their collection letter was sent.

Ms. Mixon counters that these state law claims are subject to the
FCA's statute of limitations when the underlying consumer debt is
owed to a telephone carrier, because state statutes of limitations
are preempted by federal law.  The parties agree that if suits to
collect the debt were not time-barred, the letter was not false,
misleading, unfair, or unconscionable.

The Federal Communications Act

Congress enacted the FCA in 1934 in order to curb AT&T's monopoly
and "make available a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide
wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges."  The FCA forced telephone carriers to submit
their rates to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for
approval in order to ensure that they were "just and reasonable."
Carriers could not deviate from these "tariffed" rates once they
were approved, even if the tariffed rates conflicted with a
telephone consumer's service contract.

The Act included a statute of limitations at Section 415(a) that
required carriers to file actions to recover "their lawful charges"
within one year from the original Act also included a saving clause
that provides "nothing in this Act contained will in any way
abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by
statute, but the provisions of this Act are in addition to such
remedies."

Judge Rowland notes that Section 332(c)(3) of the FCA, which
governs cellular service, provides that "no State or local
government will have any authority to regulate the entry of or the
rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private
mobile service, except that this paragraph will not prohibit a
State from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial
mobile services."  She says, the phrase "terms and conditions" is
not defined in the FCA, but the statute's legislative history
suggests that it included "such matters as billing disputes."

Federal Preemption

First, Mixon asks the Court to focus its preemption analysis on the
plain text of Section 415(a).  She argues that when the FCA says
"all actions" over "lawful charges" are subject to a two-year
statute of limitations, it means all actions, including those
brought pursuant to state laws to collect delinquent debts.

Judge Rowland opines that the argument runs into two problems:
First, the ambiguity of the phrase "lawful charges," and second,
the conflicting language in Sections 414 and 332(c)(3) of the FCA.
The Judge is not convinced that the phrase "lawful charges" is
unambiguous, for numerous reasons.  Among other things, she says
Congress did not define "lawful charges" in the FCA, citing Castro
v Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779, 785 (5th Cir. 2011).  There is
reason to find Congress only intended the statute of limitations in
415(a) to govern tariffed charges.

The other obstacle to finding express preemption is the language in
Section 414 and 332(c)(3) of the FCA.  If "lawful charges" is read
as Mixon proposes, it expressly preempts actions to collect
delinquent debts brought in state court.  The touchstone of
preemption analyses is Congressional intent, however, not text.
This means that the Court must look beyond the plain language of
Section 415(a) and consider "the statutory framework surrounding
it."  That "statutory framework" includes two saving clauses:
Sections 414 and 332(c)(3).  Read as a whole, the statutory
framework of the FCA does not support Mixon's conclusion that
Section 415(a) was intended to expressly preempt state law actions
to collect delinquent cellular service debts.

Next, Mixon also argues that even where an express preemption
saving clause such as Section 414 or Section 332(c)(3), perhaps
demonstrated Congress' intent to exempt common-preemption
.  Conflict preemption occurs when compliance with both state and
federal law is impossible, or when the state law stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
and objective of Congress.

First, Judge holds that state statutes of limitations are preempted
with respect to tariffed charges, but not with respect to
untariffed charges.  Because Mixon's debt only concerns untariffed
charges, compliance with federal and state law is not impossible.
Second, given the proliferation of cellular telephone service and
detariffing, and based on the legislative history contained in
Section 332(c)(3), the Judge concludes that Congress did not intend
to continue requiring virtually all causes of actions by carriers
against consumers to be brought within two years.  Finally, Mixon
presents no evidence that allowing carriers to bring claims
pursuant to state law would encourage forum shopping.  The Judge
also rejects the notion that compliance with state statutes of
limitations already routinely sue debtors in state court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rowland concludes that since Castro
was decided, federal courts have agreed that state law claims aimed
at collecting debts incurred from the non-payment of untariffed
charges can be pursued in compliance with the relevant state
statute of limitations.  She is persuaded by the reasoning in
Castro that the statute of limitations set by Illinois applies in
the case.  Therefore, Mixon has not stated a cause of action for
false, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable debt collection in
violation of the FDCPA.  For these reasons, the Judge grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.  The Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wypnp3rb from
Leagle.com.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooper Balks at Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAQUITA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01309 (E.D. Penn.,
March 18, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to T-Mobile, USA
primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically
telecommunication services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contracted with T-Mobile
to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about January 19,
2021, the Plaintiff received the Defendant's collection letter that
was allegedly deceptive because it implies that in exchange of 50%
of the balance the consumer will achieve some form of settlement,
when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement the Letter
is offering. The letter also fails to clearly state that account
will be reinstated upon payment of 50% of the balance, the suit
says.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e by making false and misleading representation and by
failing to delineate to which listed amount the "adjustment" may be
applied.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated consumers seeking
actual and statutory damages from the Defendant, litigation costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


CONWAY REGIONAL: Willis Seeks Ultrasound Technologists' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00239-BSM (E.D. Ark., March 26, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
ultrasound technologists overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid ultrasound
technologist from January of 2020 until March of 2021.

Conway Regional Medical Center, Inc. is a healthcare services
provider based in Conway, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         April Rheaume, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 april@sanfordlawfirm.com

CORELOGIC INC: Brown Putative Class Suit vs. RPS Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, 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 CoreLogic Rental Property
Solutions, LLC ("RPS LLC") continues to defend a putative class
action suit initiated by Terry Brown.

In May 2020, RPS LLC was named as a defendant in Terry Brown v.
CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC, a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about him that included a sex offender record that
did not relate to him.

He seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated consumers, as well as a
subclass of consumers for whom misattributed sex offender records
were removed following a dispute.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


CORELOGIC INC: Removes Fernandez Suit to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, 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 company removed the putative
class action suit entitled, Marco Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco,
LLC to the US District Court for the Southern District of
California.

In June 2020, CoreLogic Credco, LLC was named as a defendant in
Marco Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC, a putative class action
lawsuit filed in California Superior Court in San Diego County.

The named plaintiff alleges that Credco provided a lender with a
consumer report about him that erroneously indicated he is on the
Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons (OFAC List).

He further alleges that Credco failed to provide him with a copy of
the OFAC List designation upon request, failed to notify him of
what entities had received such a notification in the past, and
failed to respond to his effort to dispute the item.

He seeks to represent three classes and four subclasses based upon
these allegations, and asserts seven claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition law.

The Company has removed the case to the US District Court for the
Southern District of California, where the case remains pending.

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.

CORELOGIC INC: Settlement in Feliciano Suit Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, 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 District Court granted final
approval of the settlement in Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v.
CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC.

In July 2017, CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC was named as
a defendant in Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent,
LLC, a putative class action lawsuit in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS LLC prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed.

On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports
issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.

In July 2019, the District Court issued an order certifying a class
of approximately 2,000 consumers.

In June 2020, the company reached an agreement to resolve the case.


At a hearing on February 23, 2021, the District Court granted final
approval of the settlement.

The settlement amount was recorded during the quarter ended June
30, 2020.

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Gary
D. Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC, Clayton, Dubilier &
Rice Fund VIII, L.P., and certain directors of the Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.
An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for
breach of fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in
connection with the Merger.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February
10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the
director defendants.

Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

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

Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Lloyd Seeks to Certify Class of Owners/Occupants
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY LLOYD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COVANTA PLYMOUTH
RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04330-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c) certifying the following class:

   "All owner/occupants and renters of residential property within
   a 1.5-mile radius of the Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy
   Facility;"

   Excluded from this Class are Defendant and its affiliates,
   predecessors, successors, officers, directors, agents, servants,

   or employees, and the immediate family members of such persons.

Plaintiff Lloyd brought this action for private and public nuisance
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff is an owner of residential property located within
the proposed Class Area and her claims for property damage are
typical of the claims of the putative class and there are no known
conflicts of interest between Plaintiff and other members of the
proposed class.

The Defendant's Facility processes approximately 1,216 tons of
municipal solid waste per day, which is converted into saleable
energy in the form of refuse-driven fuel. The Facility includes a
municipal waste storage pit, an auxiliary fuel storage tank, two
Municipal Waste Incinerators (MWIs), two auxiliary burners, and
other equipment.

The Facility's principal commercial activity involves burning
municipal waste, and Defendant is required to maintain its
combustion chamber at temperatures at or above 1800F in order to
ensure proper combustion and control emissions. The Facility has an
emission stack for each MWI, through which it releases its waste
byproducts into the ambient air.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PISrS2
at no extra charge.[CC]

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

          Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq.
          KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
          194 South Broad Street
          Trenton, NJ, 08608
          Telephone: (609) 394-8585
          Facsimile: (609) 394-8620
          E-mail: KRiechelson@kcrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MH 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com   Detroit, MH 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com

COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood Cops Retirement System Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covetrus, 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 company continues to defend
a class action suit initiated by the City of Hollywood (Florida)
Police Officers' Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police
Officers' Retirement System filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12,
2019, against the Company, Henry Schein, Inc., its former Chief
Executive Officer and President, and its former Chief Financial
Officer.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions, primarily regarding the Company's
financial prospects and the integration costs relating to the
business combination involving the Animal Health Business and Vets
First Choice.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.

Covetrus said, "We intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given
the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case,
and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things,
class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this action."

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

Covetrus, Inc. is a global animal-health technology and services
company dedicated to supporting the companion, equine, and
large-animal veterinary markets. Its mission is to provide the best
products, services, and technology to veterinarians and
animal-health practitioners across the globe, so they can deliver
exceptional care to their patients when and where it is needed. The
company is based in Portland, Maine.

CRAIN FORD: Capital One's Bid to Dismiss Richardson Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff v. CRAIN FORD OF LITTLE
ROCK, LLC, and CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-126-DPM (E.D. Ark.), Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central
Division, grants Capital One's motion to dismiss without prejudice
and with leave to amend.

Mr. Richardson bought a pick-up truck from Crain Ford. He traded in
his SUV and purchased a warranty on the truck, too.  He pleads that
Crain Ford undervalued his trade-in, sold him a warranty on a
faulty vehicle, and misrepresented the truck's quality.  He also
says that Crain Ford and Capital One ignored financing rules by
processing a loan in his name when they shouldn't have.  And he
insists he's not alone, bringing a class action that alleges Crain
Ford routinely undervalues trade-ins and that both defendants
regularly disregard standard financing rules and use deceptive and
predatory lending practices.

Having removed the case, Capital One moves to dismiss Richardson's
complaint for failure to state a claim.  Crain Ford has not yet
appeared.

Judge Marshall holds that Richardson must plead his causes of
action with enough specificity to state a plausible claim for
relief.  The Judge finds that Richardson's state court complaint
needs more details to meet federal pleading requirements.

Mr. Richardson's allegations involving Capital One invoke the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in conclusory fashion.  He fails to specify
which provisions of that Act the company violated or which
financing rules were disregarded.

Mr. Richardson's response supposes a claim against Capital One
under ARK. CODE ANN. Section 4-2-608(3), but the complaint doesn't
mention that statute or provide factual support.

Mr. Richardson's claim that both Defendants electronically
processed a loan in his name despite being told to cancel the
transaction and without validating his income or employment is
concerning.  But that allegation isn't pleaded under any particular
cause of action.

Capital One is entitled to more notice about what law was
supposedly violated.  Richardson, though, is entitled to re-plead
and try to fill the gaps.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Marshall grants Capital One's
motion to dismiss.  He dismisses Richardson's claims against
Capital One without prejudice and with leave to amend.  Amended
complaint is due by April 16, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5h255xhh from Leagle.com.


CURADEN AG: Sixth Circuit Affirms Judgment in Lyngaas TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court in the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
(20-1199/20-1200), Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee
(20-1200/20-1243) v. CURADEN AG, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
(20-1200/20-1243), CURADEN USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee (20-1199/20-1200), Case Nos.
20-1199/20-1200/20-1243 (6th Cir.).

The case involves two unsolicited fax advertisements received by
Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., in March 2016.  Lyngaas asserts, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated class members, that Curaden
AG and its U.S. subsidiary, Curaden USA, violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by sending
the advertisements.

Mr. Lyngaas is a dentist who practices in Livonia, Michigan.  On
March 8 and again on March 28, 2016, Lyngaas received on his
workplace fax machine unsolicited faxes advertising the Curaprox
Ultra Soft CS 5460 toothbrush.  The toothbrush in question is
manufactured by Curaden AG, a privately owned Swiss entity.
Curaden USA, an Ohio corporation headquartered in Arizona, is a
subsidiary of Curaden AG that promotes Curaden AG products,
including the Curaprox Ultra Soft CS 5460 toothbrush, throughout
the United States.

Curaden USA planned a fax campaign as part of its marketing
efforts.  It purchased a target list of thousands of dental
professionals' fax numbers, and Curaden USA employee Diane Hammond
created the two fax advertisements at issue in the case.  Both
advertisements promoted the Curaprox Ultra Soft CS 5460 toothbrush
and were directed to "dental professionals."  Displayed on the
advertisements was Curaden USA's contact information, including a
fax number, phone number, email address, website, and social media
accounts, all of which were connected to and exclusively maintained
by Curaden USA.  The advertisements made no mention of Curaden AG,
instead referring all communications to Curaden USA.

Mr. Lyngaas, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated class
members, filed suit in March 2017, alleging violations of the TCPA.
Curaden USA answered the complaint, whereas Curaden AG moved to
dismiss the complaint based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over
it.  The district court denied Curaden AG's motion.

After a two-year discovery period, Curaden AG moved for summary
judgment, arguing again that the court lacked personal jurisdiction
over it, while Lyngaas moved both for summary judgment and to
certify the class.  Both Curaden AG and Curaden USA opposed class
certification, arguing that Lyngaas had failed to support his
motion with admissible evidence to establish the elements necessary
for class certification, and that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over them as to the proposed out-of-state class
members under Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).  The
district court denied Lyngaas's summary-judgment motion, denied in
part and granted in part Curaden AG's summary-judgment motion, and
granted class certification.

After a two-day bench trial in September 2019, the court reviewed
post-trial briefings and issued its opinion two months later. At
the outset of the opinion, the court affirmed its reasoning from
the earlier motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment rulings, holding
once again that it had personal jurisdiction over both defendants.
The court also found that Curaden USA violated the TCPA by sending
two unsolicited fax advertisements to Lyngaas as part of the two
mass-fax campaigns.  It thus awarded Lyngaas statutory damages of
$500 for each unsolicited fax for a total of $1,000.  As for
Curaden AG, however, the court held that Lyngaas had failed to
establish that Curaden AG qualified as a "sender" under the TCPA.

The district court next held that Lyngaas had not established the
total number of faxes successfully sent classwide, ruling that the
summary-report logs (documents that purportedly list each
successful recipient) were inadmissible due to inadequate
authentication, and that testimony from Lyngaas' expert witness was
inadmissible and unpersuasive.  This caused the court to establish
a claims-administration process to afford class members the
opportunity to verify their receipt of Curaden USA's unsolicited
fax advertisements.

Curaden USA timely appealed.  Lyngaas responded with a cross-appeal
and filed his own separate appeal, to which Curaden AG
cross-appealed.  Specifically, Lyngaas argues that the district
court erred by finding that Curaden AG was not a "sender" for
purposes of TCPA liability, by failing to admit key evidence at
trial, and by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants
on the question of piercing the corporate veil.

Curaden AG in turn asserts that the district court totally lacked
personal jurisdiction over it, whereas Curaden USA argues that the
district court did not have personal jurisdiction over it with
regard to non-Michigan class members, and that the court improperly
established a claims-administration process to award relief.  Both
Curaden AG and Curaden USA further argue that the district court
erroneously found, when certifying the class, that a "telephone
facsimile machine" includes faxes routed to computers, and that the
district court improperly relied on inadmissible evidence when
certifying the class.

Personal jurisdiction over Curaden AG

In resolving Curaden AG's motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment, the district court found that it had specific personal
jurisdiction over Curaden AG based on Curaden AG's contacts with
the state of Michigan and that, in the alternative, jurisdiction
was proper under Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure based on Curaden AG's contacts with the United States as
a whole.  But the court then granted summary judgment in favor of
Curaden AG on the question of whether Curaden USA served as an
"alter ego" of Curaden AG, holding that the court should not pierce
the corporate veil to exercise personal jurisdiction over Curaden
AG on the basis of Curaden USA's actions.  Lyngaas renews his
"alter ego" theory on appeal, whereas Curaden AG again argues that
the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it on any
basis.

The Sixth Circuit agrees with the district court's conclusion that
Curaden USA is not Curaden AG's alter ego.  Lyngaas states the
correct standard, but points to no evidence showing how Curaden AG
exercised its control over Curaden USA in such a manner as to wrong
him or to pursue some unlawful end.

The Sixth Circuit recognizes that the burden on Curaden AG is high
because it had no prior contact with the U.S. federal-court system.
But that burden is nonetheless outweighed by other factors.
First, the United States has an interest in enforcing federal laws.
Second, Lyngaas' interest in obtaining relief is particularly high
given that Curaden USA is not profitable and is unlikely to be
profitable in the immediate future.  The Sixth Circuit therefore
concludes that the district court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Curaden AG is reasonable, and that it comports
with due process.  And because the district court properly
exercised personal jurisdiction over Curaden AG due to Curaden AG's
contacts with the United States as a whole, the Appellate Court
need not reach the question of whether the court has personal
jurisdiction over Curaden AG due to the latter's contacts with
Michigan alone.

Curaden AG's liability under the TCPA

Having decided that personal jurisdiction over Curaden AG exists,
the Sixth Circuit now examines whether the district court erred in
concluding that Curaden AG was not a "sender" for purposes of TCPA
liability.  Lyngaas argues on appeal that the "whose goods or
services are advertised or promoted" prong of the Federal
Communications Commission regulation creates a strict-liability
standard that the district court improperly rejected.  He argues
that, even though Curaden AG did not itself send the faxes at
issue, it is nonetheless strictly liable under the TCPA because the
faxes "advertised or promoted" its toothbrush.

The Sixth Circuit opines that Lyngaas correctly notes that Garner
Properties & Management, LLC v. Marblecast of Michigan, Inc., No.
17-11439, 2018 WL 6788013 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2018), differs from
the case at hand in one respect: "Marblecast would have sent the
Fax even had it never agreed to sell American Woodmark's products,"
whereas Curaden USA is unlikely to have sent the two faxes had the
distribution agreement not existed. But this distinction does not
change the fact that Curaden AG did not possess even "some level of
knowledge that an unsolicited fax had been sent."  Because Curaden
AG clearly lacked knowledge of and involvement in the fax
advertisements, the Sixth Circuit agrees with the district court's
conclusion that Curaden AG was not a "sender" and thus not liable
under the TCPA.

Whether Faxes Received by Computers Fall Within the Scope of the
TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C)

The Sixth Circuit next addresses the reach of the TCPA as applied
to the facts before it.  Curaden AG and Curaden USA argue on appeal
that a TCPA claim is not actionable if the unsolicited
advertisement is received by any device (such as a computer through
an "efax") other than a traditional fax machine.  Thus, they argue,
Lyngaas failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because he failed to establish
which proposed class members received faxes on a traditional fax
machine versus another device, such as a computer.

The Sixth Circuit is unpersuaded by the Defendants' attempt to
limit a "telephone facsimile machine" to only traditional fax
machines, however, because such a narrow definition does not
comport with the plain language of the TCPA.  It opines that the
Defendants' argument is overbroad.  They ask the Court to hold that
a fax received by any device (such as a computer) that is not a
traditional fax machine falls outside the scope of the TCPA.  The
statutory definition, however, encompasses more than a traditional
fax machine.  Notably, it does not require the actual printing of
the advertisement, which dispels the Defendants' argument that
Congress was concerned only with the burdensome ink-and-paper costs
of fax advertising.

Whether Class Certification Must be Based on Admissible Evidence

The Appellate Court now turns to the issue of class certification.
The Defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion
by relying on inadmissible evidence to certify the class.  They,
however, did not move to decertify the class after the district
court found at the bench trial that Lyngaas's evidence of the
summary-report logs was inadmissible; rather, they argue now that
the district court improperly certified the class and improperly
established a claims-administration process based on the
inadmissible evidence.

The district court undertook the rigorous analysis required of it
and correctly found sufficient evidence for class certification.
The court had before it summary-report logs that detailed which fax
numbers had purportedly received the faxes at issue, as well as
other corroborating evidence, such as Curaden USA's target lists of
fax numbers and numerous emails detailing the transmissions.  All
that was left was authentication of the summary-report logs.
Requiring the court to "rely on formalistic evidentiary objections"
at this stage would have been inappropriate, particularly given
Lyngaas's assurance that he would be able to authenticate the logs
at trial.  The district court therefore did not abuse its
discretion in granting class certification when it relied on
evidence that had yet to be authenticated.

The District Court's Evidentiary Rulings

The Sixth Circuit next examines the district court's evidentiary
rulings.  Lyngaas argues that the district court abused its
discretion by excluding the summary-report logs and the opinions of
his expert witness, Lee Howard, from evidence.

Regarding the summary-report logs, the Sixth Circuit agrees with
the district court's conclusion that the logs at issue do not
constitute hearsay.  But overcoming the Defendants' hearsay
objection was not sufficient to make the summary-report logs
admissible.  By not presenting anyone to attest as to how the logs
at issue were created or to personally vouch for their accuracy,
Lyngaas failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 901.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
ruling that the logs were inadmissible as evidence.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that
Howard's testimony was both unreliable under Daubert and
unpersuasive.  And again, because of the lack of testimony
describing how the report logs were created or having anyone vouch
for their accuracy, Howard's opinions regarding the logs were both
speculative and unpersuasive.  The Sixth Circuit will thus not
disturb the district court's evidentiary rulings.

The District Court's Use of a Claims-Administration Process

Because the Sixth Circuit finds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings, it next
considers the claims-administration process imposed by the court.
Curaden USA does not dispute, and the court correctly found, that
"Curaden USA sent two mass-fax transmissions."  Nor is there any
dispute that Lyngaas was one of the recipients of the fax
advertisements.  Nevertheless, Curaden USA argues that, because
Lyngaas failed to establish the precise number of individuals who
received the faxes, the claims-administration process established
by the court to afford class members relief is inappropriate.

Curaden USA's concern that those who did not receive the fax will
erroneously be afforded damages is alleviated by the
claims-administration process designed by the district court to
weed out those who do not fit within the class definition.  The
Sixth Circuit therefore concludes that the district court's
establishment of a claims-administration process was proper.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Curaden USA as to Non-Michigan Class
Members

Curaden USA's final argument is that, "pursuant to the Supreme
Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb," the "district court's
exercise of jurisdiction over out-of-state Plaintiffs violated
Curaden USA's due process rights and should be reversed."  In
short, Curaden USA asks the Appellate Court to extend Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco
County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017) -- which held that a state court in a
mass action must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant as
to each plaintiff—to federal class actions.  This would require
the district court to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant
as to each unnamed class member.

The Sixth Circuit declines to extend Bristol-Myers Squibb in this
manner.  It opines that long-standing precedent shows that courts
have routinely exercised personal jurisdiction over out-of-state
defendants in nationwide class actions, and the
personal-jurisdiction analysis has focused on the defendant, the
forum, and the named plaintiff, who is the putative class
representative.  Besides being well established, this rule has a
well-reasoned basis for its existence.  The Appellate Court
therefore rejects Curaden USA's jurisdictional argument.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, writing
for the Sixth Circuit, affirms the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2pzhbbe6 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Brian S. Sullivan -- brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com --
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, in Cincinnati, Ohio, for Curaden AG and
Curaden USA, Incorporated.

David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com --David M. Oppenheim
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, in Chicago, Illinois, for
Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S.

ON BRIEF: Brian S. Sullivan, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, in Cincinnati,
Ohio, for Curaden AG and Curaden USA, Incorporated.

David M. Oppenheim, Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com --
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, in Chicago, Illinois, for
Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S.


DELTA AIR: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 602842/2021 (N.Y.,
Nassau Cty., March 9, 2020) seeks to recover overtime compensation
and other damages for the Plaintiff and employees who work or have
worked for Delta Air in Delta's Airport Customer Service and Cargo
division (ACS Employees) in New York pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

Delta is a leader in domestic and international travel, offering
airline tickets & flights to over 300 destinations in 60 countries.
Delta has compensated Plaintiff and all other ACS Employees on an
hourly basis.

The Plaintiff contends that Delta has failed to properly pay her
and other ACS Employees overtime compensation at 1.5 times the
applicable minimum wage rate for all hours they work over 40 hours
per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Agrees to Settle Olivares, Holt & Kato Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 company has agreed to
settle the suits initiated by Henry Olivares, Calethia Holt and
Kendra Cato.

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly
situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff
class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours
laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and
meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime. The parties have
engaged in written and other discovery.

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the
same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.


On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

The Company has agreed to resolve all three actions (Olivares,
Holt, and Cato), the parties to each action are in the process of
finalizing the settlement terms, and the parties will then seek
court approval of the settlements.

Dentsply said, "The expected settlement amount, which is immaterial
to the financial statements, has been recorded as an accrued
liability within the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2020."

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Dismissal of State Court Action Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 Appellate Division
issued its decision upholding the dismissal of the State Court
Action with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Action") by making material misrepresentations
and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015
registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the
Merger.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of
former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of
the Company's stock in the Merger. On September 26, 2019, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims and a judgment
dismissing the case was subsequently entered.

On February 4, 2020, the Court denied plaintiffs' post-judgment
motion to vacate or modify the judgment and to grant them leave to
amend their complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the denial of the
post-judgment motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Department, and the Company
cross-appealed select rulings in the Court's decision dismissing
the action.

The plaintiffs' appeals and the Company's cross-appeal were
consolidated and argued on January 12, 2021.

On February 2, 2021, the Appellate Division issued its decision
upholding the dismissal of the State Court Action with prejudice on
statute of limitations grounds.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: New York Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 company continues to
defend a putative class action suit in the  U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain individual defendants.

The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims
as those asserted in the State Court Action. In addition, the
plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws
by making false and misleading statements in quarterly and annual
reports and other public statements between February 20, 2014, and
August 7, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15,
2019.

On January 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, which is
subject to the Court's approval, (1) withdrawing the Company's
motion to dismiss without prejudice, (2) allowing plaintiff to file
a second amended complaint by January 22, 2021, and (3) providing
for a briefing schedule on a motion to dismiss that will be
completed by May 13, 2021.

The plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on January 22,
2021, and the Company intends to move to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DETROIT EDISON: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claim in Nolan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESLIE D. NOLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DETROIT EDISON
COMPANY; DTE ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC; DTE ENERGY COMPANY
RETIREMENT PLAN; DTE ENERGY BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE;
JANET POSLER; QUALIFIED PLAN APPEALS COMMITTEE; MICHAEL S. COOPER;
RENEE MORAN; JEROME HOOPER, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1867
(6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reverses in part and affirms in part the district court's order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the
Complaint, and entering judgment for the Defendants.

Ms. Nolan is one of many American workers impacted by the previous
decision of employers to move away from traditional pension plans.
In 2002, her employer, Detroit Edison Co. (DTE), created a cash
balance pension plan for all new employees and invited its existing
employees to transfer from their traditional defined benefit plan
to the new plan.  Nolan accepted.  When she retired in December
2017, DTE told Nolan that her monthly pension benefit would be what
she had accrued as of 2002 under the old traditional pension plan,
despite her participation in the new cash balance plan for 15 1/2
years after transfer.

On Oct. 26, 2018, Nolan brings class action claims alleging that
DTE made misleading promises and failed to explain the new plan's
risks, in violation of several provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").   She alleged (1) a claim
for benefits under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) for a breach of Plan
terms (Count I); (2) a violation of ERISA Section 102 (Count II);
and (3) a violation of ERISA Section 204(h) (Count III).

Count I alleges that Nolan is entitled to a benefit based on the
"A+B Promise."  In the alternative, Nolan alleges in Counts II and
III that the Guide inaccurately described the plan by failing to
inform her of the potential downsides of the cash balance formula,
including the likelihood that her benefits would be subject to the
wear-away phenomenon.

On Jan. 11, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that her claims were time-barred and that Counts II and
III failed to state a claim.  On July 9, 2019, the district court
issued an opinion and order granting the Defendants' motion,
dismissing the Complaint, and entering judgment for the Defendants.
Nolan timely appealed.

First, the Sixth Circuit finds that Nolan's procedural claim that
the Guide was provided at least 45-five days too late, however, is
untimely.  Under ERISA Section 204(h), notice of plan amendments
that provide "for a significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual" must be furnished "within a reasonable time before
the effective date of the amendment."  An amendment that
"eliminates or significantly reduces any early retirement benefit
or retirement-type subsidy will be treated as having the effect of
significantly reducing the rate of future benefit accrual."

At the very least, Nolan knew or should have known in 2002 that
transferring to the cash balance plan would eliminate her early
retirement benefit because the Guide states that for those
transferring from the traditional to cash balance plans, "the value
of your early retirement factors" are "not included in your initial
cash balance benefit."  Nolan knew or should have known enough in
2002 to bring her claim that DTE failed to provide the SMM notice
within a reasonable time before the effective date of the
amendment.  Nolan's procedural claim that the Guide was late is
therefore time barred.

Next, the Sixth Circuit holds that given that the materials
attached to Nolan's Complaint include support for both parties'
views and that, at this stage, it views the allegations and draws
reasonable inferences in Nolan's favor, it cannot conclude that
Nolan received a "clear and unequivocal repudiation of benefits" in
2002 when she accepted DTE's invitation to transfer from the
traditional pension plan to the cash balance plan.  Drawing all
reasonable inferences in Nolan's favor, Nolan received notice that
DTE would not honor the "A+B Promise" in 2017, and the clock began
to run on her six-year limitations period only then.  Nolan's
breach-of-the-plan claim, Count I, was timely filed in 2018.

The Sixth Circuit further holds that Nolan has a colorable claim
that DTE did not explain in plain English in the Guide or the Ayco
presentation materials its position on appeal that employees
transferring to the cash balance plan would not actually receive
any new benefits if the benefit accrued under the new plan did not
catch up to their frozen traditional plan benefit.  Likewise, DTE
failed to explain the effect that interest rates could have on
depreciating the already-earned benefits during conversion rather
than simply slowing the growth of added benefits.  Nolan stated a
plausible claim that DTE's notice was defective under ERISA Section
102 because it failed to describe the plan in a manner
understandable to the average plan participant.

Finally, the Sixth Circuit opines that the allegations in and the
materials attached to the Complaint show that DTE satisfied the
requirement to make a good faith effort to comply even though the
notice provided to employees was ultimately inadequate under ERISA
Section 102.  Even assuming that the Guide does not successfully
convey information in plain English about the wear away period or
the impact of interest rates on employees' supposedly "frozen and
protected" initial cash balance to an average plan participant, it
does contain "explanations, comparisons, and cautions," and
indicate a "multi-modal informational campaign."  Thus, even
accepting Nolan's allegations as true, Nolan has failed to state a
claim under the good-faith standard applicable to her ERISA Section
204(h) claim.

Judge Jane B. Stranch, writing for the Sixth Circuit, reverses the
district court's grant of DTE's motion to dismiss Counts I and II,
affirms the dismissal of Count III, vacates the judgment, and
remands for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/46ddkema from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Eva T. Cantarella -- ecantarella@hertzschram.com -- HERTZ
SCHRAM, PC, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Chris K. Meyer -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in
Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Eva T. Cantarella, HERTZ SCHRAM, PC, in Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan, for Appellant.

Chris K. Meyer, Mark B. Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Continues to Defend NY Consolidated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated 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 company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July and August 2019, shareholders filed putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits collectively assert that the Company and three former
officers made material misstatements regarding the Company's
business and operations, causing the Company's common stock to be
overvalued from February 14, 2017 to August 1, 2018.

The lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and lead plaintiffs appointed.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter and
management remains confident that it has valid defenses to these
claims.

Diebold said, "As with any pending litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the final outcome of this matter."

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

Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, incorporated on August 11, 1876,
provides connected commerce services, software and technology. The
Company's geographic segments include North America (NA), Asia
Pacific (AP), Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and Latin
America (LA). These segments sell and service financial
self-service (FSS), retail solutions and security systems. The
Company provides connected commerce solutions to financial
institutions. The company is based in North Canton, Ohio.

DRIVEN DELIVERIES: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRIVEN DELIVERIES, INC., DOES 1-10
Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02456(C.D. Cal., March 19,
2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant
seeking for damages and injunctive relief for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began sending unsolicited
text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in -3170 on or about January 21, 2021 for the purpose of sending
spam advertisements and/or promotional offers. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant used a spoofed telephone number in an
attempt to mask its identity to avoid accountability from placing
illegal text messages, as well as for using an "automatic telephone
dialing system" in placing unsolicited text messages. The Plaintiff
also asserts that he never provided the Defendant his prior express
consent to receive unsolicited text messages since he was never a
customer of the Defendant and thus, he never provided his cellular
telephone number to the Defendant for any reason whatsoever.

Because of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals were harmed and damaged by
causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce
telephone time for which they previously paid, and by invading
their privacy.

Driven Deliveries, Inc. is a publicly-owned cannabis delivery
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICESOF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


DUAL DIAGNOSIS: $1.3M Attys.' Fees Awarded in Cusack-Acocella Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY CUSACK-ACOCELLA, et al., Plaintiffs v. DUAL
DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-01009-ODW (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Incentive Awards.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action against their employer
Sovereign, three Sovereign executives (Sharma, Gallagher, and
Tessers), and Allied.  Essentially, the Plaintiffs alleged the
Sovereign Defendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to fund
Sovereign's Employee Health Benefit Plan and by misusing Plan
assets.  They also sued the Plan administrator, Allied, alleging
that Allied knew about and concealed the underfunding of the Plan.

The parties litigated the matter for over two years.  The
litigation consisted of two rounds of motions to dismiss, a
preliminary injunction which resulted in the freezing of
Sovereign's assets, two rounds of motions for class certification,
a motion for summary judgment, and a motion for a temporary stay,
not to mention numerous discovery motions and multiple attempts at
mediation.

In September 2019, in a settlement conference before Magistrate
Judge Karen Scott, the Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement
with Allied, Sovereign, and Sharma on the record.  That agreement
was eventually memorialized in writing ("First Settlement
Agreement" or "FSA").  Under the FSA, Allied agreed to fully
resolve the Pclass members' outstanding benefits claims and to
reimburse all the Pclass members who made out-of-pocket payments to
resolve claims the Plan had failed to pay.  Sovereign and Sharma
agreed to be jointly and severally liable for Allied's payments,
and they separately agreed to fully indemnify Allied.

Because Gallagher and Tessers would not agree to joint and several
liability for attorneys' fees, they did not join the FSA.  Thus,
the Plaintiffs conducted further trial preparation, attended the
pretrial conference, and otherwise prepared for trial at
significant cost.  Then, the Plaintiffs did reach a settlement
agreement with Gallagher and Tessers ("Second Settlement Agreement"
or "SSA").  Under the SSA, Gallagher and Tessers agreed to
secondary liability for payment of claims under the Plan in the
event Allied, Sovereign, and Sharma defaulted.  They did not agree
to any liability for attorneys' fees or costs.

Under both the FSA and SSA, the parties agreed to participate in a
settlement conference before Judge Scott to try to negotiate the
amount of attorneys' fees and costs the Plaintiffs might obtain.
Both agreements also contemplate that the Plaintiffs would file a
motion for attorneys' fees if such negotiation was unsuccessful.
In the FSA, the Plaintiffs agreed their request for fees would not
exceed $1.75 million, and their request for incentive awards for
each named Plaintiff would not exceed $5,000.  The FSA makes clear
it "does not address the Plaintiffs' costs (other than attorneys'
fees) incurred in litigating the action, and thus the Plaintiffs
are not releasing such costs."  The Plaintiffs also confirmed on
the record before Judge Scott that "their fee motion will seek not
more than $1.75 million in attorneys' fees" and "no m[ore] than
$5,000 each for incentive awards."

Now, with their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek $3,799,378.50 in
attorneys' fees, $84,118.96 in costs, and $35,000 in incentive
awards divided among the seven named Plaintiffs.

First, Judge Wright considers whether the Plaintiffs achieved "some
degree of success on the merits" as to any Defendants.  Without
conducting a lengthy inquiry into the question whether a particular
party's success was substantial or occurred on a central issue," he
finds that the Plaintiffs achieved some success on the merits
against Allied, Sovereign, and Sharma, but only nominal success
against Tessers and Gallagher.  The Plaintiffs are therefore
eligible for an award of fees under Section 1132(g)(1) against
Allied, Sovereign, and Sharma, but not against Tessers or
Gallagher.

Second, the Judge exercises his discretion in deciding whether to
award fees in the case.  He finds that the Plaintiffs agreed to --
and represented to the Court that they would -- limit their request
for attorneys' fees to $1.75 million.  The Plaintiffs now argue
that they merely agreed to limit the lodestar to $1.75 million, but
that is not what the record shows.  The Judge holds that the FSA is
clear.  The Plaintiffs' representation to the Court was clear.
Hence, under no circumstances should the award of attorneys' fees
exceed $1.75 million.

Third, having determined that an award of fees is both available
and appropriate (with a maximum award of $1.75 million), the Judge
must now calculate the amount of fees to award the Plaintiffs.  He
bases the lodestar on the following hourly rates: $500 for
Friedenberg and Reilly, $400 for Eldredge, and $350 for Rann, and a
paralegal rate of $150 per hour.  Thus, purely based on the
Plaintiffs' counsel's reported number of hours (3182.2 attorney
hours and 687.6 paralegal hours), the lodestar would be $1,481,995.
However, the Judge must still consider whether the number of hours
expended was reasonable.

The Judge notes that Allied's counsel billed a total of 1,729 hours
for a total of $414,000 in fees, whereas the Class Counsel billed a
total of 3,870 hours for a claimed total of about $2.5 million.
Indeed, this is a great disparity, even accounting for the hours
billed by Sovereign's counsel.  Thus, the Judge reduces the
lodestar by an additional 10% ($144,637.97), bringing the lodestar
down to $1,301,741.75 ($1,446,379.72 - $144,637.97 =
$1,301,741.75).

Accordingly, based on the lodestar calculations outlined, the
Plaintiffs will be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount
of $1,301,741.75.

The Plaintiffs also request $84,118.96 in costs.  The Defendants
contend that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately support their
request for costs because the only documentation provided by the
Plaintiffs consists of "a completely disorganized 345-page lump of
various invoices.

Judge Wright finds that Defendants' protests unpersuasive.
Although he must agree that the lump of disorganized invoices is
not helpful, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' counsel also
provided a detailed accounting of its costs.  And although these
costs are significant, he finds them adequately documented and
ultimately reasonable.  Thus, the Plaintiffs will be awarded costs
in the amount of $84,118.96.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek seven $5,000 incentive awards, one for
each named Plaintiff.  They agreed to limit their request for
incentive awards to $5,000 per named Plaintiff, which they have
done.  Moreover, the Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs'
request for incentive awards.  The Judge finds the request
reasonable.  Thus, the Plaintiffs will be awarded a $5,000
incentive award for each named Plaintiff, for a total of $35,000.

In summary, Judge Wright granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards.  He awarded the
Plaintiffs $1,301,741.75 in attorneys' fees, $84,118.96 in costs,
and $35,000 in incentive awards ($5,000 for each named Plaintiff),
payable by Defendants Allied, Sovereign, and Sharma (jointly and
severally, as set forth in the FSA).  The Plaintiffs will also
receive post-judgment interest as governed by 28 U.S.C. Section
1961(a). The Court will issue a separate Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5s8m4pze from Leagle.com.


EDCO SUPPLY: Vasconcelo Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS VASCONCELO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDCO SUPPLY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 506591/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 19, 2021)
alleges the Defendant of violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator
for about 42 years ending on or about January 2, 2021 performing
all physical and repetitive tasks within the capacity throughout
his workday.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant paid him and other similarly situated manual
workers on a bi-weekly basis;

     -- The Defendant failed to properly pay them overtime wages
and non-overtime wages; and

     -- The Defendant failed to provide them with the notices and
wage statements required by NYLL.

On behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages/compensation including severance pay, maximum
liquidated damages and interest on wages paid later than weekly,
plus attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

Edco Supply Corporation manufactures fabric and related products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Tel: (718) 740-1000
          Fax: (718) 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


EL MARIACHI: Lopez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ELPIDIO LOPEZ and MAGDALENO GAONA SALGADO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. EL MARIACHI HOLDING CORP.
and PABLO BRAVO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01204 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper minimum wage
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the the
New York Labor Law.

The Corporate Defendants are the owners of El Mariachi Restaurant,
which is a restaurant engaged in the business of serving food and
drink to customers. El Mariachi Restaurant is a Mexican restaurant.


The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants employ cooks, and
servers/cashiers in both the front and back of the house all of
whom are paid less than required under federal and New York State
law for their work each hour and week.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss Hunter Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated 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
company's motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit
entitled, Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., is pending.

On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Elanco, Jeffrey Simmons and Todd Young.

On September 3, 2020, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply
chain, inventory, revenue and projections.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30,
2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued
in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics,
Inc.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2021. The
timing of the Court's decision is uncertain.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Class Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated 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
shareholder class action suit entitled, Safron Capital Corporation
v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., has been stayed.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was
filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives, and other individuals.

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
relationships with third party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3/ASR dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying
prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which
closed on or about January 27, 2020.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or 5.00% TEUs issued in
connection with the public offering.

This case is currently stayed in deference to Hunter v. Elanco
Animal Health Inc.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.


EMBROIDERY CENTRAL: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embroidery Central
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Embroidery Central Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01677 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021).

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

Embroidery Central -- https://www.embroidery.com/ -- offers machine
and hand embroidery projects with a full range of hooping aids,
threads, patterns & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


EMBROIDERY DESIGNS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embroidery Designs
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Embroidery Designs Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01676 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021).

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

Embroidery Designs -- https://www.embroiderydesigns.com/ --
provides a website for downloading embroidery designs and
embroidery patterns from their collection of designs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


ENERGYFIRST ENGINEERING: Subpoena Compliance Compels in Field Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL FIELD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ENERGYFIRST ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, LLC, PLANNING THRU
COMPLETION, LLC, and RUSCO OPERATING, LLC, Case No.
1:21-mc-00276-RP, the Plaintiff filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas a motion to compel subpoena
compliance against the Defendants on March 26, 2021. The Plaintiff
moves to compel the Defendants to response to documents and
information relating to discovery in the Fair Labor Standards Act
lawsuit styled JOEL FIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Case No.
4:20-cv-00575, pending in the Southern District of Texas.

EnergyFirst Engineering and Consulting, LLC is an energy
exploration company based in Texas.

Planning Thru Completion, LLC is a workforce management solution
for the skilled trades, headquartered in Texas.

Rusco Operating, LLC is a freight shipping and trucking company
based in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

                  - and –

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Adams FCRA Suit Transferred to in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Billy Adams, Wendell Bell, Ann Cooke, Linette
McCaul, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00017, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on March 30, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-MLB-RDC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC --
https://www.equifax.com/personal/ -- provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Theodore Hill, Esq.
          KROHN & MOSS-IL
          P 120 West Madison Street, 10th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 578-9428


EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Brach Family Foundation Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company 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 company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Brach
Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

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

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

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


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

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Financial in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek; (a)
compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest;
(b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty
in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative
class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection
with their statutory claims.

In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision
granting in part Brach Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.


The court certified nationwide breach of contract and Section 4226
classes, and a New York State Section 349 class. Equitable
Financial petitioned for discretionary appellate review of that
decision, which petition was denied.

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

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

Equitable Financial is vigorously defending each of these matters.

Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company is one of America's
leading financial services companies, providing advice and
solutions for helping Americans set and meet their retirement goals
and protect and transfer their wealth across generations. The
company is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Equitable
Holdings, Inc. In May 2018, Holdings completed the initial public
offering in which AXA sold shares of Holdings common stock to the
public. Following the Holdings IPO, AXA has continued to divest its
ownership in Holdings and currently holds less than 10% of the
shares of common stock of Holdings.


EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: O'Donnell Appeals Grant of Entry of Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company 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 in Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company,
has filed a notice of appeal on the court's decision granting the
company's motion for entry of judgment.

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

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

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
Equitable Financial implemented the volatility management strategy
in violation of applicable law.

Plaintiff seeks an award of damages individually and on a classwide
basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and other costs.  

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District
of New York granted Equitable Financial's motion to dismiss the
complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

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

In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
Equitable Financial's notification to the court that it would not
file a petition for writ of certiorari.

The case was transferred in December 2018 to the Connecticut
Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford. In December 2018,
Equitable Financial sought dismissal of the complaint by filing a
motion to strike, which the court granted in August 2019.

Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint in September
2019. Equitable Financial filed a motion for entry of judgment in
October 2019.

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

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

Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company is one of America's
leading financial services companies, providing advice and
solutions for helping Americans set and meet their retirement goals
and protect and transfer their wealth across generations. The
company is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Equitable
Holdings, Inc. (Holdings). In May 2018, Holdings completed the
initial public offering ("Holdings IPO") in which AXA sold shares
of Holdings common stock to the public. Following the Holdings IPO,
AXA has continued to divest its ownership in Holdings and currently
holds less than 10% of the shares of common stock of Holdings.


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Utilities, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the putative class action suit related to the "do not consume"
water advisory.

During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a do not consume
advisory for some of its customers in one division served by the
Company's Illinois subsidiary.  

Although the Company has determined that it is reasonably possible
that a fine or penalty may be incurred, it cannot estimate the
possible range of loss at this time and no liability has been
accrued for these future costs.  

In addition, on September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action
against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in
Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory.  

The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees,
and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages,
and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water
provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in
University Park Illinois.  

The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of
supplied water that exceeded the standards established by the
federal Lead and Copper Rule.  

The complaint is in the discovery phase and class certification has
not been granted.  

The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim. A claim
for the expenses incurred has been submitted to the Company's
insurance carrier for potential recovery of a portion of these
costs, and on August 3, 2020, the Company received $2,874 in
insurance proceeds. The Company continues to assess the potential
loss contingency on this matter.  

Essential said, "While the final outcome of this claim cannot be
predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could negatively
impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of management, the
final resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the
holding company for regulated utilities providing water,
wastewater, or natural gas services to what the company estimate to
be almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas,
Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands.


ESTEE LAUDER: Joseph Product Liability Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMY JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., Case
No. 2021 CH 00699, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 29,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01703 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, strict
product liability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts of various
states by failing to disclose the propensity of its Reformulated
Eye Concentrate product to cause physical injury.

The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is an American manufacturer and
marketer of skincare, makeup, fragrance and hair care products,
based in Midtown Manhattan, New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Brian W. Bell, Esq.
         Andrew A. Lothson, Esq.
         Bryan E. Rogers, Esq.
         Madison C. Shepley, Esq.
         SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
         330 North Wabash Ave., Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (312) 321-9100
         E-mail: bbell@smbtrials.com
                 alothson@smbtrials.com
                 berogers@smbtrials.com
                 mshepley@smbtrials.com

ESTEEM PATROL: Preliminary Conference Filed in Bailey NYLL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA BAILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ESTEEM PATROL SERVICE INC. d/b/a CITI SECURITY, Case No.
707035/2020, a preliminary conference was filed with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, on March 29,
2021.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations,
and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and Class members appropriate prevailing rates of wages
and benefits as required by the law.

Esteem Patrol Service Inc., doing business as Citi Security, is a
security guard services company, with a principal place of business
in Kings County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Mark Gaylord, Esq.
         BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
         357 Veterans Memorial Highway
         Commack, NY 11725
         Telephone: (516) 742-4949

FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Kinin Over Open Display Ads Market Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KININ, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00622 (D.D.C., March 8, 2020) is as class action complaint
for equitable relief and treble damages against the Defendants for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to collude
rather than compete and has caused and will continue to cause
injury and economic harm to Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated advertisers that bid through Google's Open Bidding program
through any non-FAN ad network or demand-side platform, including
Google Ads and GDN.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' horizontally competing
ad networks, GDN and FAN, should vigorously compete for advertisers
and publishers, but they do not. Instead, as alleged in a complaint
filed against Google on December 16, 2020 by state attorneys
general and elaborated upon in an article in the New York Times on
January 17, 2021, the Defendants conspired to allocate to one
another the advertisers and publishers affiliated with each network
and to eliminate competition between them in the open display
advertising market.

In an agreement that Google insiders codenamed "Jedi Blue,"
Facebook agreed to bid FAN's demand through Google's ad exchange,
rather than directly through multiple exchanges using a competing
technology called "header bidding." In return for that agreement,
FAN received (i) preferential treatment over other bidders,
including a guaranteed "win rate;" (ii) superior information about
the advertising opportunity, including the identity of the user
most of the time; and (iii) increased "timeouts" for Facebook to
bid before it was excluded from the auction, all of which allowed
Facebook to bid and win more often relative to non-Facebook
bidders, the suit says.

The Plaintiff purchased display advertising through Google Ads
between September 2018 and the present.

Google is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies,
the world’s most dominant search engine, and the world's most
visited website, YouTube. Google LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Alphabet.

In 2019, spending in the United States on digital, online
advertising reached $129.34 billion, exceeding for the first time
the total spent in the U.S. on all forms of traditional print,
radio, television and billboard advertising. In 2021, digital ad
spending in the U.S. is expected to reach $198 billion, about a
third of which, or $66.2 billion, will be spent on search
advertising, in which advertisers target search engine users
searching for a particular product or service and pay to have ads
placed next to the search results. This audience is composed mostly
of users of Google, which has an 88% share of search queries in the
U.S. and a 92% share of search queries worldwide. The remaining
U.S. digital ad spend, or about $132 billion, will be spent on
display advertising, in which advertisers place images, banners, or
videos on websites likely to be viewed by the advertiser’s target
audience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 630-0616
          Facsimile: (877) 247-8586
          E-mail: jrubin@moginrubin.com
                  dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  joliver@moginrubin.com
                  tlacomb@moginrubin.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          101 W. Broadway, Ste 820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
                  lindner@hartleyllp.com

FAHRENHEIT MECHANICAL: Faces Fahrenheit Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fahrenheit Mechanical
Inc. et al. The case is captioned as THE IDEAL SUPPLY COMPANY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL LIENORS, CLAIMANTS AND CREDITORS
SIMILARLY SITUATED ENTITLED TO SHARE FUNDS RECEIVED BY FAHRENHEIT
MECHANICAL INC., UNDER ARTICLE 3-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE LIEN LAW
v. FAHRENHEIT MECHANICAL INC. ET AL., Case No. 152298/2021 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., March 5, 2020).

Ideal Supply is a distributor of pipe, valves and fittings
servicing mechanical contractors.

Fahrenheit Mechanical is a heating, ventilation & air conditioning
company.[BN]

FARFETCH LIMITED: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Farfetch Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit, is pending.

On September 2019, following periods of volatility in the market
price of the company's Class A ordinary shares, two putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States against us and
certain of our Directors and officers, among others, under the U.S.
federal securities laws.

The lawsuits are captioned Omdahl v. Farfetch Limited et al and
City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Retirement Plan v. Farfetch
Limited et al, both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On June 10, 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits.

On August 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20A and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the
company and certain of its current and former officers, as well as
violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act against
the company, certain of its current and former officers and
Directors, and the underwriters of the company's September 2018
initial public offering.

The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a proposed class
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period of September 20, 2018 to August 8,
2019, purportedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by us and the individual
officers regarding our business model, growth strategy, and
supplemental financial metrics.

On October 23, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and briefing on that motion was completed on
February 4, 2021.  All other proceedings in the lawsuit have been
stayed pending the resolution of that motion.

Farfetch said, "We intend to continue to vigorously contest these
claims. While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is
inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties,
based upon information presently known to management we believe
that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations."

Farfetch Limited is an online luxury fashion retail platform that
sells products from over 700 boutiques and brands from around the
world. The company was founded in 2007 by the Portuguese
entrepreneur Jose Neves with its headquarters in London and main
branches in Porto, Guimaraes, Braga, Lisbon, New York, Los Angeles,
Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo and Dubai.

FARFETCH LIMITED: Walter Putative Class Action Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Farfetch Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit
entitled, Walter v. Farfetch.com US, LLC, has been stayed.

In April 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States against Farfetch.com US, LLC alleging violations of
Section 632.7 of the California Penal Code.

The lawsuit is captioned Walter v. Farfetch.com US, LLC, and is
stayed by agreement of parties in the Orange County Superior Court
of California pending the outcome of Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., which
is under review in the California Supreme Court.

The assigned court in Orange County set a review hearing as to the
stay for June 10, 2021.  

The company's response to the complaint is due within twenty-one
days of the California Supreme Court's issuance of its decision in
Smith.  

Farfetch said, "We intend to continue to vigorously contest these
claims. While the outcome of any complex legal proceeding is
inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties,
based upon information presently known to management, we believe
that the potential liability, if any, will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or results of
operations."

Farfetch Limited is an online luxury fashion retail platform that
sells products from over 700 boutiques and brands from around the
world. The company was founded in 2007 by the Portuguese
entrepreneur Jose Neves with its headquarters in London and main
branches in Porto, Guimaraes, Braga, Lisbon, New York, Los Angeles,
Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo and Dubai.


FCA US: Claims in Flores' First Amended Class Complaint Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joshua Flores, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-10972 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' 12-Count First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Seven named Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against
Defendant FCA on April 20, 2020.

On June 8, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss.
Thereafter, the Court issued its standard order, advising the
Plaintiffs that they could either file a response to the motion or
file an amended complaint, in order to remedy any pleading
deficiencies.

The Plaintiffs then filed the FAC on July 10, 2020.  The FAC states
that the case is a putative class action against FCA, on behalf of
individuals who purchased or leased any of the following vehicles
sold with an electronic sway bar disconnect: 2010-2017 Jeep
Wrangler Rubicon (JK), 2010-2017 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon
(JKU), 2018-2020 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (JL), 2018-2020 Jeep
Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon (JLU), 2020 Jeep Gladiator Rubicon, 2010
Dodge Ram 2500 Power Wagon, and 2011-2020 Ram 2500 Power Wagon.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles' electronic sway bar
disconnects poses a serious safety risk to drivers, occupants, and
the general public.  Specifically, they allege that the electronic
circuit board for the sway bar disconnect is in a housing with
seals that are prone to failure and is located in an area that is
likely to get wet or sprayed under ordinary or expected conditions,
such as driving over puddles or in the rain. Failure of the circuit
board occurs when liquid or contaminants breach a seal of the
housing, resulting in a disconnected or malfunctioning sway bar.
In some instances, the electronic sway bar disconnect will fail and
not reconnect, forcing the driver to drive on roads and highways
without a sway-bar. Driving on streets and highways with a
disconnected or malfunctioning sway bar is dangerous.

The Plaintiffs allege that FCA has known about this problem for
years but has taken no action to fix it.  Instead, FCA continues to
sell the Class Vehicles as safe, reliable and fit for their
ordinary purpose. Even worse, FCA also denies warranty coverage for
the Sway Bar Defect. As a result, owners of the Class Vehicles have
suffered damages, including, inter alia: (1) out-of-pocket expenses
to repair or replace defective electronic sway bar disconnects; (2)
costs for future repairs or replacements; (3) sale of their vehicle
at a loss; and/or (4) diminished value of their vehicles.

The FAC includes seven named Plaintiffs (Flores, Alexander
Klimushkin, Jason Henderson, Patrick Gravenese, Mark Krohn, Robert
Oliver, and Richard L. Stirrat) who reside in California, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, and Texas.  They purchased their vehicles in
California, Nevada, Kentucky, Virginia, New York, and South
Carolina.

The FAC asks the Court to certify it as a class action with the
following classes and subclasses:

   a. All persons in the United States who purchased, leased, or
      own a Class Vehicle (the Nationwide Class or Class);

   b. All persons in California who purchased, leased, or own a
      Class Vehicle (the California Subclass);

   c. All persons in Michigan who purchased, leased, or own a
      Class Vehicle (the Michigan Subclass);

   d. All persons in Nevada who purchased, leased, or own a Class
      Vehicle (the Nevada Subclass);

   e. All persons in New Jersey who purchased, leased, or own a
      Class Vehicle (the New Jersey Subclass);

   f. All persons in New York who purchased, leased, or own a
      Class Vehicle (the New York Subclass);

   g. All persons in South Carolina who purchased, leased, or own
      a Class Vehicle (the South Carolina Subclass); and

   h. All persons in Virginia who purchased, leased, or own a
      Class Vehicle (the Virginia Subclass).

The FAC also states that "subject to additional information
obtained through further investigation and discovery, the foregoing
class definitions may be expanded or narrowed by an amended
complaint, or narrowed at class certification, including through
the use of multi-state subclasses."

The FAC includes the following 12 counts: 1) Breach of Express
Warranty (Count I); 2) Breach of Implied Warranty (Count II); 3)
Unjust Enrichment (Count III); 4) "Violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section 1750 et
seq. ("CLRA") (Count IV); 5) "Violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.
(Count V); 6) "Breach of Implied Warranty Under the Song-Beverly
Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790 et seq." (Count VI); 7) "Violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA")" (Count VII); 8)
"Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VA. Code Ann.
Section 59.1-196 et seq.)" (Count VIII); 9) "Violation of the
Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. Section
598.0903 et seq.)" (Count IX); 10) "Deceptive Acts or Practices,
New York GBL Sectio 349" (Count X); 11) "(False Advertising, New
York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350)" (Count XI); and 12) "South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. Sections
39-5-10, et seq.)" (Count XII).

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the FAC, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Attached to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
are six warranty information booklets: 1) 2013 Jeep Warranty
Information Booklet; 2) 2013 Ram Warranty Information Booklet; 3)
2015 Jeep Warranty Information Booklet; 4) 2017 Jeep Warranty
Information Booklet; 5) 2018 Jeep Warranty Information Booklet; and
6) 2018 Ram Warranty Information Booklet.

When sold new, the Plaintiffs' vehicles were covered by a
3-year/36,000-mile Basic Limited Warranty, which was materially
identical among the Class Vehicles.  The Basic Limited Warranty
provided to the Plaintiffs states: "The warranties contained in
this booklet are the only express warranties that FCA US LLC (FCA
US) makes for your vehicle.  The Basic Limited Warranty covers the
cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any item on your
vehicle when it left the manufacturing plant that is defective in
material, workmanship or factory preparation, excluding tires.  The
Basic Limited Warranty begins the date the owner takes delivery of
the vehicle or when the vehicle is first put into service."

The motion has been fully briefed by the parties and Judge Cox
heard oral argument on Dec. 3, 2020.

Among other things, the Defendant seeks dismissal of Counts VIII
and XII, asserting that the "VCPA and SCUTPA, by their plain terms,
do not permit class actions.  They contend that, to the extent that
Counts VIII and XII are being pursued on behalf of class, they must
be dismissed.

In response, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that the SCUTPA and VCPA
their own terms, do not allow class actions.  They assert, however,
that Rule 23 governs the availability of class action in federal
court irrespective of the class action bars in those statutes.  The
Plaintiffs note there is a split of authority on the issue and
direct the Court to cases wherein district courts have accepted
their position on this issue.

As reflected by the conflicting cases cited by the parties, there
is a split of authority on this issue.  Judge Cox will follow the
approach taken by the district courts in Danielkiewicz v. Whirlpool
Corp., 426 F.Supp.3d 426, 431 (E.D. Mich. 2019) and Matanky v. Gen.
Motors LLC, 370 F.Supp.3d 772 (E.D. Mich. 2019), and rules that the
Plaintiffs cannot maintain a class action as to the alleged
consumer protection violations in Counts VIII and XII.

Count I of the FAC asserts a claim for "Breach of Express
Warranty."  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant "promised,
warranted, and/or advertised that the Class Vehicles have the
capability to safely manage in up to 30 inches of water.  These
warranties, as well as advertisements, brochures, and other
statements in the media regarding the Class Vehicles formed a basis
of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiffs and Class members
purchased or leased their Class Vehicles."  The Defendant's motion
asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty
are subject to dismissal for several reasons.

Judge Cox concludes that, under the laws of the states where the
Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles, they cannot assert express
warranty claims based on statements made in advertising or
marketing materials that are not included in written warranty
booklets.  The Plaintiffs also disagree with the proposition that
an express warranty that only covers defects in "material,
workmanship or factory preparation" does not cover design defects,
but offer no legal authority to support their position.  The
Defendant persuasively argues that what the Plaintiffs have alleged
in the FAC is a design defect.  While the FAC makes references to
defects in materials and workmanship, the Judge fails to see any
well-pleaded supporting factual allegations that would support a
claim of defects in materials or workmanship.  Thus, he dismisses
the express warranty count on this basis.

The Plaintiffs also assert claims for breach of implied warranty
under the UCC in Count II and Flores asserts a similar claim in
Count VI under California's Song-Beverly Act.  The Defendant's
motion challenges these two counts, asserting that the facts
pleaded in the FAC "do not support the notion that the Plaintiffs'
vehicles were 'unmerchantable.'"  In response, the Plaintiffs
assert that this argument should be rejected for the same reason
that Judge Roberts rejected it in Matanksky.

Judge Cox agrees.  Accepting Plaintiffs' allegations in the FAC as
true, they plausibly allege that their vehicles are not fit for the
ordinary purpose of providing safe and reliable transportation on
public roads and are not suitable for the purpose of off-roading
due to the Sway Bar Defect and their inability to withstand water.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Cox grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He granted the motion to the
extent that he dismisses: 1) the Breach of Express Warranty claims
asserted in Count I; 2) the Breach of Implied Warranty claim of
Plaintiff Henderson asserted in Count II; 3) all of the Unjust
Enrichment claims asserted in Count III, with the exception of the
claim asserted by Plaintiff Stirrat under South Carolina law; 4)
the consumer protection act claims asserted in Counts IV, V, VII
through XII; and 5) the nationwide class allegations asserted in
the FAC, for lack of standing.  The Judge also rules that the
Plaintiffs cannot maintain a class action as to the consumer
protection violations in Counts VIII and XII.  He denies the motion
in all other respects.

Accordingly, the following claims remain in the putative class
action: 1) the Breach of Implied Warranty claims of Plaintiffs
Flores, Klimushkin, Oliver, Gravense, Krohn, and Stirrat asserted
in Count II; 2) the unjust enrichment claim of Plaintiff Stirrat
asserted in Count III, and 3) the Breach of Implied Warranty Claim
under the Song-Beverly Act, asserted by Plaintiff Flores in Count
VI.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dajs7eub from Leagle.com.


FIELDWORKS LLC: Counts II & III in Mathews FCRA Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MATHEWS, Plaintiff v. FIELDWORKS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-06057-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Roseann A.
Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, dismisses Counts II and III for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Lee's Summit,
Missouri.  He filed the putative class action against Defendant
Fieldworks pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Defendant Fieldworks is a foreign company doing business in
Missouri and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff replied to an ad on Craigslist for employment with
the Defendant in November of 2019 and went to its office for an
interview on Nov. 7, 2019.  The interview was a group interview
that took place in the Defendant's office.  During the interview,
the Plaintiff informed an employee of the Defendant that he had a
criminal history, and the Defendant's employee stated that the
Plaintiff "should be fine."

The Plaintiff was hired and was provided a start date following the
interview.  He was shown a pop-up screen on an ipad that indicated
he was hired, which stated, "proceed to application" and had a
button to send a link to himself.  He accessed the link that was
provided and completed the Defendant's application form, which
stated it was an application, and then clicked a button labeled
"submit application."

The Plaintiff alleges he did not understand that the Defendant's
form was anything other than an employment application.  He alleges
the Defendant's form did not disclose that it would procure a
Consumer Report and did not obtain his authorization to procure a
Consumer Report.  The Plaintiff attached to the Amended Petition,
as Exhibit 1, five pages purporting to be various versions of the
Defendant's application forms.

On Nov. 14, 2019, the Plaintiff was told in a phone call that he
would not be hired by the Defendant due to information in his
Consumer Report.  He received a text message the same day as the
phone call and was notified a second time that the Defendant could
not offer him a position due to his background check.  The text
message notifying him he was being denied employment because of his
background check is standard company policy.

The Plaintiff did not know that the Defendant had contacted
Sterling Infosystems and utilized a third party to access his
personal information.  He received an email approximately four days
after the phone call with a copy of the Consumer Report attached.
The Defendant did not give the Plaintiff a copy of his Consumer
Report prior to withdrawing his offer of employment.

In Count I (Adverse Action Violations), the Amended Complaint
alleges the Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide the
Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report that was used to take
adverse employment action against the Defendant prior to the
adverse action.  The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with a
FCRA Summary of Rights prior to the adverse action.

In Count II (Disclosure Violation), the Amended Complaint alleges
the Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to disclose that a
Consumer Report would be obtained for employment purposes.  In
Count III (Authorization Violation), the Amended Complaint alleges
the documents used by the Defendant to obtain a Consumer Report on
the Plaintiff does not contain an authorization for the Defendant
to obtain a consumer report for employment purposes.

The Defendant submits several exhibits of evidentiary materials
with their briefing, including a deposition transcript of the
Plaintiff, its employment application forms at issue, and the
background report at issue.  The Defendant argues in its briefing
that Mathews has suffered no actual, concrete injury from
FieldWorks' alleged violations of FCRA.  For that reason, he lacks
Article III standing and, accordingly, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.

As to each particular Count, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff has
not shown or alleged a concrete harm for the several reasons,
including, but not limited to: (i) Mathews does not allege that his
background check was inaccurate; (ii) the Plaintiff does not allege
any concrete, specific injury from the alleged failure to use a
technically proper disclosure and authorization form; (iii) the
Plaintiff admitted signing the disclosure and authorization form;
and (iv) the fact the FieldWorks form had additional material, was
not a 'standalone' form and did not meet other technical
requirements of the FCRA, is insufficient to find Mathews suffered
any invasion or privacy or 'informational injury.'

The Court notes the following admissions by the Plaintiff found in
the deposition submitted with the Defendant's briefing: (i) the
Plaintiff believed the form to be a continuation for the
application of employment; (ii) the Plaintiff interpreted the
paragraph on the form that begins I certify to mean that they might
check public records, Missouri Case.net, which is public records
for the Court system; (iii) the Plaintiff would assume that if they
checked Missouri Case.net, assuming they didn't miss anything, they
would have found his conviction for burglary; and (iv) the
Plaintiff admitted the information contained in the report was
accurate by his response, No, no nothing would be inaccurate, no.
It's all correct.

The Court notes, however, the Defendant makes unsupported arguments
regarding its policy: (i) FieldWorks' policy is not to hire felons
and to exclude felons who were convicted of acts of dishonesty or
violence, including burglary, from public contact; and (iii) based
on the information in the report, FieldWorks' policies required
that the Plaintiff be denied employment.

On Jan. 26, 2021, the Court voiced concerns to the parties during a
status conference as to whether the Plaintiff has standing to
maintain an action in federal court under the FCRA.  Because a
district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction when a
plaintiff lacks standing, the Court directed the parties to submit
briefing applying the law of Article III standing to the Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument on the issue was held on Feb. 10, 2021.

During oral arguments, the Plaintiff stated in assessing their
Article III standing the Court must assume on the merits that the
Plaintiff will be successful on their claims and the amended
complaint must be granted all reasonable inferences.  The Defendant
argued that the issue of what the Court can take into consideration
at this stage, the Court can definitely look beyond the pleadings
with respect to the issue of standing.  It mounts a factual attack
by submitting evidentiary materials, including a deposition
transcript of the Plaintiff, the Defendant's employment application
forms, and the background report at issue.

With respect to Count I, Judge Ketchmark finds that even though the
Plaintiff eventually obtained his background report, and even
though his background report was accurate, the Defendant presents
only argument that "FieldWorks' policy is not to hire felons and to
exclude felons who were convicted of acts of dishonesty or
violence, including burglary, from public contact."  Without
evidence of FieldWorks' policy, it is possible that the Plaintiff
could have addressed his conviction contained in the background
report with the Defendant and persuaded it to hire him.  In such
case, the Plaintiff would have suffered a concrete and
particularized injury.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Count I should
not be dismissed at this juncture.

As for Counts II and III, Judge Ketchmark holds that, although the
Plaintiff pleaded he did not understand that the Defendant's form
was anything other than an employment application and the
Defendant's form did not disclose that the Defendant would procure
a Consumer Report, his claims of resultant invasion of privacy and
informational injuries are insufficiently concrete to confer
subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff does not plead that, aside from not technically
complying with the stand-alone requirement for disclosure, the
disclosure was inaccurate or confusing to a reasonable person.  He
does not allege that, had the form he filled out contained a
technically proper disclosure, he would not have signed or applied
for the job.  Even the allegation that the form did not disclose
that a Consumer Report would be obtained is belied by the form
explicitly stating that the Plaintiff would be subject to "the
completion of a background check" and/or "investigative background
inquiries" and/or "consumer investigative criminal convictions", as
well as gathering of "information from various federal, state, and
other agencies, which maintain records concerning my past
activities relating to any criminal experience."

These disclosed inquiries fit within the FCRA's broad definition of
a consumer report as including "any communication of any
information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of
living serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's
eligibility for employment purposes."

The same rationale is fatal to the Plaintiff's claim as to
authorization, Judge Ketchmark holds.  She says the Plaintiff
alleges the Defendant used documents that do not contain an
authorization for it to obtain a Consumer Report to obtain Consumer
Reports on him, but the form, though technically deficient under
the FCRA, belies the lack of authorization.  Moreover, in his
deposition, the Plaintiff recalled the form and testified he
thought it was a continuation of the application for employment.

On this record, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff fails to show
concrete injury sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction
for his claims as to FCRA violations as to disclosure and
authorization.  Accordingly, his Counts II and III are dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ketchmark concludes that the
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his disclosure claim under Count
II and authorization claim under Count III.   The Plaintiff has not
established or pled he suffered a concrete injury, even assuming
there were technical violations in the Defendant's disclosure and
authorization form under the FCRA.  Accordingly, the Judge
dismisses Count II and Count III for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Count I remains for the reasons she discussed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/atvckmm2 from Leagle.com.


FIRST TRANSIT: Faces Raj Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Transit, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as Patrick Raj vs. First Transit,
Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00295895-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., March 5, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup.
Headquartered at 600 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit
operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million
passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states,
Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          KINGSLEY AND KINGSLEY
          City National Bank Bldg.
          16133 Ventura Blvd No. 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com

FLINT, MI: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Garland Water Crisis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To
Williamson v. Garland, et al., Case No. 20-10330 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued a Corrected Opinion
and Order:

   a. denying without prejudice City of Flint Defendants' Motions
      to Dismiss,

   b. denying as Moot LAN's Motion to Dismiss, and

   c. granting in part and denying in part LAN's Amended Motion
      to Dismiss and LAD's Motion to Dismiss.

The case 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 Plaintiffs in the case are Gladys Williamson and twenty-five
other individuals, including minor children.  The Defendants are:
(1) Veolia North America, Inc., Veolia North America, LLC, and
Veolia Water North America Operatizing Services, LLC (together,
"VNA")1; (2) Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and Lockwood, Andrews
& Newnam, P.C. (together, "LAN"); (3) Leo A. Daly Company ("LAD");
(4) the City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Howard
Croft, Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson (collectively "City
Defendants"); (5) former Governor Richard D. Snyder,2 Andy Dillon,
Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, and
Adam Rosenthal (collectively, the "State of Michigan Defendants");
and (6) Rowe Professional Services Company, formerly known as Rowe
Engineering, Inc.  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 matter.

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.  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 the other qualifying individuals in the Flint
Water Cases have until March 29, 2021 to decide whether to
participate in the settlement.  If the Plaintiffs decide to
participate and if the Court grants final approval of the
settlement, then, in consideration for a monetary award, their
claims against the settling Defendants will be dismissed.

Accordingly, and pursuant to the stay, the Court denies without
prejudice the City Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.  If any
adult Plaintiffs in the case proceed with their litigation against
the City, the City may re-file its motions to dismiss pursuant to
the schedule and requirements set forth in the Master Settlement
Agreement ("MSA").  The processes and procedures for minor
Plaintiffs who choose not to participate in the settlement are set
forth in the MSA and further described in the Court's preliminary
approval order.

This leaves the following motions for determination: LAN's amended
motion and LAD's motion.

The Court has previously adjudicated other motions to dismiss in
the Flint Water Cases and will rely upon them as appropriate in the
case: Guertin v. Michigan, No. 16-12412, 2017 WL 2418007 (E.D.
Mich. June 5, 2017); Carthan v. Snyder, 329 F.Supp.3d 369 (E.D.
Mich. 2018); Carthan v. Snyder, 384 F.Supp.3d 802 (E.D. Mich.
2019); and Walters v. City of Flint, No. 17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2019); Marble v. Snyder, 453 F.Supp.3d 970
(E.D. Mich. 2020), Brown v. Snyder, No. 18-10726, 2020 WL 1503256
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020) and Bacon v. Snyder, No. 18-10348, 2020
WL 6218787 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2020).

The Flint Water Cases have also produced several Sixth Circuit
opinions.  These are binding on the Court and include Carthan v.
Earley, 960 F.3d 303 (6th Cir. 2020); Walters v. Flint, No.
17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874 (6th Cir. August 2, 2019); Guertin v.
Michigan, 912 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2019); Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d
391 (6th Cir. 2017); and Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437 (6th
Cir. 2017).

As the number of Flint Water Cases increased over the years, the
Court entered case management orders to manage the litigation.  It
appointed and then directed Co-Liaison Counsel for the individual
Plaintiffs to file a Master Complaint that would apply to all
pending and future non-class action cases.  The Master Complaint
was filed in Walters.

The attorneys in each of the individual cases were then ordered to
file a Short Form Complaint to accompany the Master Complaint,
adopting only the pertinent allegations from the Master Complaint
as they saw fit.  The Short Form Complaints also allowed for an
Addendum if any Plaintiff wished to allege a new cause of action or
include additional Defendants.  This would allow the Court to issue
opinions consistent with Walters that would apply to multiple
individuals, rather than to address each case in turn and cause a
delay in the administration of justice.

Since one of the Plaintiffs in the case, Milton Gordon, alleges not
just lead but also legionella exposure, Judge Levy notes that the
Court reached decisions in Marble and Brown, which serve as the
lead legionella cases.  Similar to Walters, her opinions as they
relate to legionella are consistent with Marble and Brown.

The Plaintiffs brought their original complaint on Feb. 20, 2020.
They amended their complaint twice.  Their Short Form Complaint
fully adopts the relevant facts alleged in the Master Complaint
from Walters.  And as set forth above, one Plaintiff also alleges
injuries from exposure to legionella.

The Plaintiffs included an exhibit containing a fact-specific
portion in their operative Short Form Complaint, describing their
lead and legionella exposure.  They also attached a second exhibit
where they set forth additional allegations against individual City
and State of Michigan Defendants, which need not be described in
detail when adjudicating the motions against LAD and LAN.

The Plaintiffs bring claims against LAN and LAD for professional
negligence and punitive damages.

As set forth, the Plaintiffs allege professional negligence and
punitive damages against Defendants LAN and LAD.  Their Short Form
Complaint contains no additional factual allegations against LAN or
LAD.  Accordingly, all of the facts that the Plaintiffs rely on as
the basis for their claims against LAD and LAD derive from the
Master Complaint in Walters.  In Marble and Brown, the Court
analyzed the Master Complaint's allegations as they related to
those plaintiffs' legionella-based claims.  And in the matter, as
in Marble and Brown, Judge Levy holds that the fact that one
Plaintiff alleges legionella exposure in addition to lead exposure
does not change the core analysis of the Plaintiffs' claims.

As to professional negligence, the Judge opines 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, the Judge denies LAN
and LAD's motions to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' 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.  The result in the
instant case is no different, the Judge holds.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs acknowledge in their response that dismissal of this
claim is appropriate.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' 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 the case.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Levy denies without prejudice
the City's motion, denies as moot LAN's first-filed motion to
dismiss, and grants in part and denies in part LAN and LAD's
motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Corrected Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/asx7c4j7 from
Leagle.com.


FLINT, MI: Court Partly Grants Dismissal Bids in Water Crisis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To:
Williamson v. Garland, et al., Case No. 20-10330, Case No.
5:20-cv-10330-JEL-RSW (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 the motions to dismiss
filed by LAN and 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 Plaintiffs in the case are Gladys Williamson and 25 other
individuals, including minor children ("Plaintiffs").  The
Defendants are: (1) Veolia North America, Inc., Veolia North
America, LLC, and Veolia Water North America Operatizing Services,
LLC ("VNA"); (2) Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and Lockwood,
Andrews & Newnam, P.C.'s ("LAN"); (3) Leo A. Daly Co. ("LAD"); (4)
the City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Howard Croft,
Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson ("City Defendants"); (4)
former Gov. Richard D. Snyder, Andy Dillon, Stephen Busch, Patrick
Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, and Adam Rosenthal ("State of
Michigan Defendants"); and (5) Rowe Professional Services Company,
formerly known as Rowe Engineering, Inc.  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 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.  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 the Plaintiffs decide to participate and if the
Court grants final approval of the settlement, then, in
consideration for a monetary award, together, Plaintiffs' claims
against the City and the State of Michigan Defendants will be
dismissed.

Accordingly, and pursuant to the stay, the Court denies without
prejudice the City Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.  If any
adult Plaintiffs in the case proceed with their litigation against
the City, the City may re-file its motions to dismiss pursuant to
the schedule and requirements set forth in the Master Settlement
Agreement ("MSA").  The processes and procedures for the minor
Plaintiffs who choose not to participate in the settlement are set
forth in the MSA and further described in the Court's preliminary
approval order.

This leaves the following motions for determination: LAN's amended
motion and LAD's motion.

The Court has previously adjudicated other motions to dismiss in
the Flint Water Cases and will rely upon them as appropriate in
thecase: Guertin v. Michigan, No. 16-12412, 2017 WL 2418007 (E.D.
Mich. June 5, 2017); Carthan v. Snyder, 329 F.Supp.3d 369 (E.D.
Mich. 2018); Carthan v. Snyder, 384 F.Supp.3d 802 (E.D. Mich.
2019); and Walters v. City of Flint, No. 17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2019); Marble v. Snyder, 453 F.Supp.3d 970
(E.D. Mich. 2020), Brown v. Snyder, No. 18-10726, 2020 WL 1503256
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020) and Bacon v. Snyder, No. 18-10348, 2020
WL 6218787 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2020).

The Flint Water Cases have also produced several Sixth Circuit
opinions.  These are binding on the Court and include Carthan v.
Earley, 960 F.3d 303 (6th Cir. 2020); Walters v. Flint, No.
17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874 (6th Cir. August 2, 2019); Guertin v.
Michigan, 912 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2019); Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d
391 (6th Cir. 2017); and Mays v. City of Flint, 871 F.3d 437 (6th
Cir. 2017).

The Plaintiffs brought their original complaint on Feb. 20, 2020.
They amended their complaint twice.  Because the Opinion and Order
adjudicates only LAN and LAD's motions, the procedural history set
forth here will be limited to these two Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Short Form Complaint fully adopts the relevant
facts alleged in the Master Complaint from Walters v. City of
Flint, No. 17-cv-10164, 2019 WL 3530874, at *4-*11 (E.D. Mich. Aug.
2, 2019).  Like Walters, all of the Plaintiffs in the case allege
lead poisoning.  And, one Plaintiff also alleges injuries from
exposure to legionella.

The Plaintiffs included an exhibit containing a fact-specific
portion in their operative Short Form Complaint, describing their
lead and legionella exposure.  They also attached a second exhibit
where they set forth additional allegations against individual City
and State of Michigan Defendants, which need not be described in
detail when adjudicating the motions against LAD and LAN.

The Plaintiffs bring claims against LAN and LAD for professional
negligence and punitive damages.

As set forth, the Plaintiffs allege professional negligence and
punitive damages against Defendants LAN and LAD.  Their Short Form
Complaint contains no additional factual allegations against LAN or
LAD.  Accordingly, all of the facts that the Plaintiffs rely on as
the basis for their claims against LAD and LAD derive from the
Master Complaint in Walters.

In Marble and Brown, 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, Judge Levy holds
that the fact that one Plaintiff alleges legionella exposure in
addition to lead exposure does not change the core analysis of the
Plaintiffs' claims.

As to professional negligence, 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 Plaintiffs' 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.  The result in the
case is no different.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs acknowledge in
their response that dismissal of this claim is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' 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 the case.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Levy denied without prejudice
the City's motion, denied as moot LAN's first-filed motion to
dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part LAN and LAD's
motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jupkt4y from Leagle.com.


FLUENT HOME: Stover FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HILMA STOVER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FLUENT HOME, LLC, and THE BANK OF
MISSOURI d/b/a FORTIVA RETAIL CREDIT, Case No. 21 C 14, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Wyoming County, West Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on
March 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00191 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the Truth in Lending Act.

Fluent Home, LLC is a security system services company based in
Lehi, Utah.

The Bank of Missouri, doing business as Fortiva Retail Credit, is a
financial services company based in Missouri. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Elizabeth M. Thomas, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         Tower Two-Sixty
         260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 667-7921
         Facsimile: (412) 667-7995
         E-mail: ethomas@mcguirewoods.com

FORD MOTOR: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in Cashatt WPLA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDALL CASHATT, BRANDON KENDALL, DAVID HODEL, CHAD
PRENTICE, BETH JOSWICK, and JEFFREY HEATH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05886 (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's motion to
strike class allegations in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are law enforcement officers who were issued Ford
Explorer Interceptors as their regular patrol vehicles.  They
allege that the Defendant violated Washington state's product
liability statute ("WPLA") by designing, engineering, and
manufacturing 2011-2018 Ford Interceptor SUVs with design flaws or
defective systems that leaked exhaust fumes, including carbon
monoxide, into the passenger compartments of the vehicles.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they were proximately harmed by these
defects and that the Defendant knew or should have known of the
defects.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to bring a
class action against the Defendant on behalf of all Washington
State Troopers who were injured as a result of carbon monoxide
exposure while operating or riding in a 2011-2018 Ford Interceptor
SUV while employed by the Washington State Patrol.

On Feb. 5, 2020, the Defendant moved the Court to strike class
allegations in the Amended Complaint, and to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  The Court granted the motions but permitted the
Plaintiffs to amend their complaint, providing them one chance to
sharpen their class definition and allegations.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed a second amended complaint.  On June 29, 2020,
the Defendant filed the pending motion to strike class
allegations.

In its prior order, the Court identified problems with the
commonality and predominance prerequisite of Rule 23 with respect
to Plaintiffs' product liability claim.  To satisfy the "common
question of law or fact" requirement under Rule 23(a)(2), members
of the class must assert a common contention "that must be of such
a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means
that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke."

In their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs attempt to remedy
their overly broad proposed class as identified by the Court.  They
narrowed the proposed class from "law enforcement officers in
Washington State who are/were required to operate the Ford Explorer
vehicles as part of their work assignments," to "all law Washington
State Patrol employees in the State of Washington who drove or rode
in a Class Vehicle and were injured from carbon monoxide between
September 2010 and present date."   The Plaintiffs assert that
class members are identifiable as each one "is an employee of the
Washington State Patrol who reported a carbon monoxide exposure
injury after operating in or riding in a class vehicle."

Judge Jones explains that under the statute, "a product
manufacturer is subject to liability to a claimant if the
claimant's harm was proximately caused by the negligence of the
manufacturer in that the product was not reasonably safe as
designed or not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or
instructions were not provided."  As the Court noted in its prior
order, even if the Plaintiffs established that all 2011-2018 Ford
Explorers used by police have the design flaw, "there would still
be the further issue of whether the flaw manifested to a meaningful
degree in each vehicle and whether there would be alternate causes
of the leak."  The inquiry into causation under RCW 7.72.030 would
require an individual analysis with respect to each patrol officer
and his or her vehicle.  The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint
fails to adequately address this matter, and these individualized
factual determinations prevail.

In its prior order, the Court also found that problems arise from
the breadth of the Plaintiffs' class based on the variety of
distinct injuries ranging from minor "foggy headedness" to "heart
attack like symptom" to "chronic carbon monoxide poisoning."  The
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to adequately remedy
this issue as well.  Indeed, the Plaintiffs similarly allege varied
injuries, including the Plaintiffs who became "sick, disorganized,
foggy headed" and "suffered medical illnesses; heart attack like
symptoms, chronic carbon monoxide poisoning, acute carbon monoxide
poisoning, fatigue, nausea and other disabling injury."

Furthermore, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' new proposed
class definition creates an impermissible "fail-safe" class.  A
"fail-safe" class is one in which membership is tied to the
ultimate question of liability.  As the Court has noted, "fail-safe
classes are impermissible because they make it impossible for a
defendant to prevail against the class.  The Plaintiffs argue that
the proposed class is not an impermissible fail-safe class because
each proposed class member has a documented exposure to carbon
monoxide that has been recorded utilizing the Washington State
Patrol system.  Judge Jones is not persuaded.

The Plaintiffs' revised class definition expressly includes all
"Washington State Patrol employees in the State of Washington who
drove or rode in a Class Vehicle and were injured from carbon
monoxide between September 2010 and present date."  Exposure to
carbon monoxide does not necessarily result in injury. As Defendant
correctly points out, the two cannot be conflated.  Moreover, if
exposure to carbon monoxide were a defining characteristic of the
class, then the proposed class would be unascertainable.  It would
include individuals who were exposed to carbon monoxide but did not
suffer an injury; such individuals would not have standing to
allege a product liability claim against Defendant.

Assuming, arguendo, that the class is comprised of individuals who
have been "injured" from carbon dioxide, Judge Jones holds that the
class would fall into the category of an impermissible fail-safe
class. This is because injury and causation are elements that must
be established and which go to the question of liability; they are
therefore not appropriate as part of the definition of the class.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' claim that other jurisdictions have
recognized these types of claims against the Defendant to be valid
class action cases is unavailing, Judge Jones opines.  In fact,
none of the cases cited by the Plaintiffs stand for this
proposition because they involved a proposed economic loss class,
not a personal injury class, or they were dismissed or settled
prior to class certification.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to remedy the deficiencies
previously identified by the Court in their proposed class
allegations, Judge Jones need not address other arguments raised.
He concludes that the Plaintiffs' WPLA claim is unsuitable for
class certification.  The Plaintiffs' WPLA claim on behalf of the
named Plaintiffs as set forth in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint is unaffected by the ruling.

For foregoing reasons, Judge Jones grants the Defendant's motion to
strike class allegations in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/byrz2up from Leagle.com.


FOX KOHLER: 3rd Cir. Vacates Denial of Arbitration Bid in Frederick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAREN FREDERICK, on behalf of herself and all other
class members similarly situated v. LAW OFFICE OF FOX KOHLER &
ASSOCIATES PLLC LLC, FKA National Legal Center PLLC; ARTHUR M.
KOHLER; ROSEANNA FOX; COMERICA BANK; GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS LLC;
JOHN DOE(S) 1-100 Said name of John Doe(s) being fictitious LAW
OFFICE OF FOX KOHLER & ASSOCIATES PLLC LLC, FKA National Legal
Center PLLC; ARTHUR M. KOHLER; ROSEANNA FOX, Appellants, Case No.
20-2539 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacates the District Court's order denying the Law Firm's motion to
compel arbitration.

In 2013, Frederick entered into a Professional Legal Services
Agreement with the Law Firm to help negotiate her accounts with
creditors, the goal being to resolve each account, one by one,
based on what the creditor agrees to settle for and her available
reserves.  Six years later, she filed suit against the Law Firm for
allegedly engaging in racketeering, consumer fraud, and unlawful
debt adjustment practices, in violation of various New Jersey
laws.

Frederick brought the suit on behalf of herself and "a class
composed of all citizens or residents of the State of New Jersey
who executed agreements with or received services from, or on whose
behalf was established trust or escrow accounts maintained or
utilized by the Law Firm in a bank or other financial institution
into which monies of the class members were transferred or
deposited for the purpose of or relating to services provided by
the [Law Firm] in connection with debt adjustment or credit
counseling services."

The Law Firm moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the following
provision in the parties' Agreement: "Each party agrees to enter
into good faith discussions and if needed, allow up to 180 days to
seek resolution prior to either party filing a formal complaint.
Any dispute that cannot be resolved between the parties after 180
days must be resolved by binding arbitration that replaces the
right to go to court before a judge or a jury which may limit each
party's right to discovery and appeal.  This agreement will be
submitted for binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of
the American Arbitration Association [(AAA)].  Neither party may
bring a class action suit or other representative action in court,
nor bring any claim in arbitration as a class action or other
representative action. The laws of the State of DE will govern this
agreement."

The District Court denied the Law Firm's motion.  Notwithstanding
the Agreement's Delaware choice of law provision, the Court applied
the law of the forum state, New Jersey, and held the Agreement's
arbitration provision to be unenforceable.  The Law Firm has timely
appealed.

The Law Firm argues that the District Court erred in concluding
that the Agreement's arbitration provision is invalid.  First, it
contends that the arbitration provision would have been found valid
had the Court applied Delaware law in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement.  Next, it argues that the Court's construction of
New Jersey law on arbitrability was erroneous.  Lastly, it
challenges the enforceability of New Jersey law on arbitrability,
contending that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempts it.

The Third Circuit, for purposes of analysis, applies New Jersey
law.  Because the underlying principle of all arbitration decisions
is that arbitration is strictly a matter of consent, it explains
that the FAA requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements
according to their terms.  In doing so, the Third Circuit must
consider two gateway questions: (1) whether the parties have a
valid arbitration agreement at all (i.e., its enforceability), and
(2) whether a concededly binding arbitration agreement applies to a
certain type of controversy (i.e., its scope).  State law governs
both gateway questions, but due regard must be given to the federal
policy favoring arbitration.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit
employs a presumption of arbitrability at the second gateway
question.

The Third Circuit opines that the arbitration provision is valid.
It finds that the Agreement's arbitration provision explains that
arbitration "replaces the right to go to court before a judge or
jury" and further states that arbitration "may limit each party's
right to discovery and appeal."  Additionally, it states that "any
dispute that cannot be resolved between the parties after 180 days
must be resolved by binding arbitration" and that the Agreement
"shall be submitted for binding arbitration in accordance with the
rules of the American Arbitration Association," thereby both
clarifying that arbitration is the singular way for the parties to
resolve their disputes and establishing the rules that will govern
the arbitration.  The Agreement's arbitration provision makes
"clear and understandable to the average consumer" that she is
waiving her right to bring suit in a judicial forum.  The Appellate
Court, therefore, concludes that the arbitration provision is
enforceable.

The Third Circuit further opines that the arbitration provision is
also sufficiently broad to encompass reasonably Frederick's
statutory causes of action.  It says the provision expressly
includes "any dispute that cannot be resolved between the parties
after 180 days."  That provision is "clear and unambiguous in its
intent and purpose to inform the reader that all disputes must be
presented in an arbitral forum, not a court."  Moreover, New Jersey
courts have consistently held that such broad language will
encompass statutory claims, particularly in the absence of "a
limiting reference to a contract."

Hence, the Agreement's arbitration provision is enforceable as to
both contractual and statutory claims, and Frederick must resolve
her claims in arbitration with the Law firm, according to the terms
of the Agreement.  For these reasons, the Third Circuit vacates the
District Court's order denying the Law Firm's motion to compel
arbitration and remands with instructions to grant the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/355sdc83 from Leagle.com.

Vincent E. Gentile -- vincent.gentile@dbr.com -- [ARGUED], at 214
Carnegie Center, Suite 100, in Princeton, New Jersey 08540, Counsel
for Appellants.

Joseph M. Pinto -- jfpolino@prodigy.net -- [ARGUED], POLINO AND
PINTO, P.C., at 720 East Main Street, Suite 1C, in Moorestown, New
Jersey 08057, Counsel for Appellee.


FPA VILLA: Lawrence's Amended Suit Dismissed as a Shotgun Pleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FPA VILLA DEL LAGO, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-1517-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), Judge
Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, dismisses the second
amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.

Plaintiff Lawrence initially filed the putative class action
against FPA Multifamily, LLC, on July 2, 2020.  FPA Multifamily
moved to dismiss the complaint, and Lawrence filed an amended
complaint on Aug. 24, 2020.  The amended complaint replaced
Defendant FPA Multifamily with FPA Villa Del Lago and John Doe
Defendants 1-10.  On March 4, 2021, the Court granted in part FPA
Villa Del Lago's second motion to dismiss, providing leave to
amend.

On March 18, 2021, Lawrence filed a second amended complaint,
replacing the John Doe Defendants 1-10 with FPA VV-Woodchase, LLC,
FPA Ocala-Western, LLC, FPA/WC University Lakes, LLC, FLT Spanish
Oaks, LLC, VA7 Aqua Palms, LLC, VA7 Indigo Row, LLC, and Trinity
Property Consultants, LLC.  The second amended complaint includes
the following claims: rescission (Count I), unjust enrichment
(Count II), and violations of the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act (Count III).

Judge Covington notes that the Court has an independent obligation
to dismiss a shotgun pleading.  In Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015), the
Eleventh Circuit has identified four rough types or categories of
shotgun pleadings: (1) a complaint containing multiple counts where
each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts; (2) a
complaint that is replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial
facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action;
(3) a complaint that does not separate into a different count each
cause of action or claim for relief; and (4) a complaint that
asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without
specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts
or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought
against.  The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun
pleadings is that they fail to give the defendants adequate notice
of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim
rests.

In the case, Judge Covington holds that the second amended
complaint is a shotgun pleading because it falls within the first
category identified in Weiland.  Counts II and III roll all
preceding allegations into each count.  Indeed, each of these
counts begins by stating: "Plaintiff hereby incorporates by
reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of
this Complaint."  This is impermissible.

Accordingly, the Judge sua sponte dismisses the second amended
complaint as a shotgun pleading.  Lawrence may file a third amended
complaint that is not a shotgun pleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/75r45xjd from Leagle.com.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays Class Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the consolidated class action suit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, pending appeal.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserted, among
other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court's permission to refile.


On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint.

On March 24, 2020, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend, finding that they had not pled a viable claim.

Plaintiffs appealed and the case was stayed by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims."

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. It offers broadband, video, voice, and other
services and products through a combination of fiber and
copper-based networks to consumer customers. The company was
formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its
name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier
Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.

FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces Helms FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as HELMS v. FRONTLINE
ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC and CVI SGP Acquisition Trust, Case No.
1:21-cv-04335-RMB (D.N.J., March 6, 2020).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit and is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Renee Marie Bumb.

Frontline Asset Strategies is a collection agency based out of
Minnesota.[BN]

Plaintiff Moet Helms, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

FUBOTV INC: Lee Slams Share Drop Over Wavering Business
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUBOTV Inc., David Gandler, Edgar M.
Bronfman Jr., And Simone Nardi, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01641,
(S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fubo is a multichannel video programming distributor offering
subscribers access to thousands of live sporting events as well as
news and entertainment content. Its platform allows customers to
access content through streaming devices and on SmartTVs, mobile
phones, tablets and computers. It streams its services to United
States, Canada and Spain. Fubo revenues are almost entirely derived
from the sale of subscription services and advertising in the
United States.

Fubo allegedly misrepresented its financial health and its
operating condition including representations relating to a variety
of Fubo's business operations and performance metrics, including,
among others, its ability to grow subscription levels and future
profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations and
potentially shrinking addressable market, ability to attract and
generate advertising revenue, the Company’s valuation, and its
prospects of entering the arena of online sports wagering.

Fubo's growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable
past the one-time seasonal surge. Its offering of products would
eventually be subject to cost escalation and could not successfully
compete and perform as sports book operator and could not
capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity. Its data and
inventory was not differentiated to achieve its long-term
advertising growth goals. Fubo's valuation was overstated in light
of its total revenue and subscription levels.

Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo
securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020
to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.

Lee acquired Fubo securities and suffered damages as a result of
the federal securities law violations and false or misleading
statements or material omissions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com

             - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             mjwernke@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FULTON FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Kress Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Financial Corporation 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 plaintiffs'
counsel has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Settlement and Provisional Certification of Settlement
Class and Collective with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in the suit initiated by D. Kress.

On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D.
Kress filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit on
behalf of herself and other teller supervisors, tellers, and other
similar non-exempt employees in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted summons without a formal
service of process on January 20, 2020.

The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise
account for the amount of time D. Kress and putative collective and
class members spent conducting branch opening security procedures.


The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton Bank did not properly
compensate those employees for their regular and overtime wages.

The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for
a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and
costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back
overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking
compensatory damages and interest.

The Corporation and counsel representing plaintiffs have reached
and executed a formal Settlement Agreement to resolve this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs' Counsel has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class and Collective Settlement and Provisional Certification of
Settlement Class and Collective with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The Corporation is not able to provide any assurance that the Court
will grant the Motion. If the Court does grant the Motion, the
Settlement Agreement will be administered according to its terms
and thereafter subject to final approval by the Court.

Fulton said, "The financial terms of the Settlement Agreement are
not expected to be material to the Corporation. The Corporation
established an accrued liability during the third quarter of 2020
for the costs expected to be incurred in connection with the
Settlement Agreement."

Fulton Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks offer a full range of general retail and commercial banking
services, including deposits, loans, equipment leasing and
financing, and credit cards. Fulton operates in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. The company is based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.


FUSIFORM INC: Fails to Pay OT Premium, Earned Wages, Truesdell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TODD TRUESDELL, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. FUSIFORM, INC. DBA FACTORYFOUR, a Delaware
Corporation; ALEX MATTHEWS, an individual; WARREN MILE TURNER, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV00463
(Calif., Super., March 8, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed
to timely produce the Plaintiff's complete wage statements and
payroll records upon request, failed to pay overtime premium wages
due, and failed to pay earned wages in violations of the California
Labor Code.

Throughout the entirety of his employment, the Defendants required
him to perform work in excess of 40 hours without compensating him
at an overtime pay rate for all hours worked in excess of the 40
hours per week, the Plaintiff says.

On February 10, 2020, the Plaintiff began working at the
Defendants' office location until his April 14, 2020 termination.

The Plaintiff resides in Rio Vista, Solano County, California. He
resided in Concord, Contra Costa County at his time of hire by the
Defendant. He relocated to Los Angeles, Los Angeles County for
purposes of employment.

Fusiform Inc. was founded in 2012. The company's line of business
includes the operation of non-classifiable establishments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grainne Callan, Esq.
          1030 E. El Camino Real No. 374
          Sunnyvale, CA 94087
          Telephone: (408) 982-6224

GATEWAY ENERGY: Leverick Sues Over Improper Pricing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Leverick and Harry Moscatiello, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gateway Energy
Services Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01642 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 24, 2021), seeks injunctive relief, actual damages and
refunds, treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and the
costs of this suit for alleged deceptive, improper and bad faith
pricing practices for natural gas and/or electricity under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and violations of the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, as well as for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

Gateway Energy Services Corporation is an energy company with
customers in New Jersey, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Virginia.

Defendant has allegedly lured consumers into switching energy
suppliers offering competitive rates through a market-based
variable rate for natural gas and electricity. Plaintiffs contend
that Gateway's variable rates are substantially higher than those
otherwise available from its customers' local utilities in the
energy marketplace and charge exorbitant charges for their natural
gas and/or electricity. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
      134 Kings Hwy. E., 2nd Floor
      Haddonfield, NJ 08033
      Tel: (856) 772-7200
      Fax: (856) 210-9088
      Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
             klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

             - and -

      Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
      Beth A. Frederick, Esq.
      FREDERICK LAW GROUP, PLLC
      836 Philadelphia Street
      Indiana, PA 15701
      Tel: (724) 801-8555
      Fax: (724) 801-8358
      Email: TMF@FrederickLG.com
             BAF@FrederickLG.com

             - and -

      Keith T. Vernon, Esq.
      Andrew Knox, Esq.
      TIMONEY KNOX, LLP
      1717 K Street, NW, Suite 900
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (215) 646-6000
      Email: KVernon@timoneyknox.com
             aknox@timoneyknox.com


GDB INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Sues Over Warehouse Workers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, VICENTE MARTINEZ LOPEZ, RICARDO GALINDO NAZARIO,
EPIGMENIO RUIZ MARTINEZ, and ELEUTERIA ARELLANEZ RAMIREZ, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GDB
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05923 (D.N.J.,
March 19, 2021), arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work in its
recycling facilities - Plaintiff Lopez as a machine operator from
approximately November 2016 to the present; Plaintiff Nazario as a
forklift driver from approximately August 2016 to the present;
Plaintiff Martinez as a sorter and forklift driver from
approximately November 20, 2015 to the present; and Plaintiff
Ramirez as a sorter from approximately June 26, 2016 to the
present.

The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their employment with the
Defendant, they were paid a fixed rate regardless of the number of
hours they worked. The Defendant allegedly denied them of minimum
wage and overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate for hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective and class
action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
who have worked as Warehouse Workers for the Defendant at the
Monmouth Junction Warehouse and the New Brunswick Warehouse. The
Plaintiffs seek unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest under the NJWHL,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

GDB International, Inc. operates recycling facilities in New
Jersey, Illinois, and Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Vivianna Morales, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  morales@pechmanlaw.com


GJ COMPANY: Faces Stage Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GJ Company LLC. The
case is captioned as Christian Stage and Does 1-10 v. GJ Company
LLC and Gilbert Street Unit 2 LLC, Case No.
34-2021-00295928-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 8,
2020).

The case arises from employment-related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Michaela Amato, Esq.
          Gary R. Basham, Esq.
          Bldg 4d, 35 Beaverson Blvd
          Brick, NJ 08723-7857
          Telephone: (732) 477-2600
          Facsimile: (732) 477-8894

GLOBALEX CORPORATION: Maravilla Sues Over Workplace Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANETTE MARAVILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBALEX CORPORATION; OUTPUT
SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV11784 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for alleged sex and race
discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination,
failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to provide and
maintain accurate wage statements and records in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act.

Ms. Maravilla worked in the Defendants' finance and accounting
department as an office manager or bookkeeper from May 4, 2017
until her termination on March 30, 2020.

Globalex Corporation is a computer software company with its
principal place of business located at 2100 Abbot Kinney Boulevard,
Venice, California.

Output Services Group, Inc. is a printing services company with an
office located at 2100 Abbot Kinney Boulevard, Venice, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
         Andrea M. Fernandez, Esq.
         JACKSON LAW, APC
         2 Venture Plaza, Suite 240
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 281-6857
         Facsimile: (949) 777-6218

GOOGLE LLC: Long Sues Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES LONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
5:21-cv-01589-NC (N.D. Calif., March 5, 2021) is a class action
arising from Google's profiting from illegal gambling games
developed by DoubleU Games Co., Ltd. and offered, sold, and
distributed by Google through its Google Play Store for consumers
to download and play.

Google offers, sells, and distributes casino-style slot machines,
casino-style table games, and other common gambling games to
consumers through Google Play, which allegedly constitutes illegal
gambling pursuant to the law of various states.

Plaintiff Frances Long is an adult citizen and resident of the
state of Missouri.

Google LLC is the primary operating subsidiary of the publicly
traded holding company, Alphabet Inc. GPC provides in-app payment
processing services to Android app developers and consumers through
Google Play. Google requires app developers who distribute their
apps on Google Play to use its billing system if they offer in-app
purchases of digital goods, and to pay a service fee from a
percentage of the purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-Mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Online Gambling Activities, Bruschi Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI BRUSCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, LLC; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP.,
Defendants, Case 5:21-cv-01992 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2021) is a
class action arising from Google's profiting from illegal gambling
games developed by Grande Games Limited ("Grande Games") and
offered, sold, and distributed by Google through its Google Play
Store ("Google Play") for consumers to download and play.

According to the complaint, Google offers, sells, and distributes
casino-style slot machines, casino-style table games, and other
common gambling games to consumers through Google Play, which
constitutes illegal gambling pursuant to the law of various
states.

Allegedly, Google has profited and continues to profit from
gambling activity in violation of the Civil Remedy Statute for
Recovery of Gambling Losses by: (1) providing marketing guidance,
tools, promotional offers and more to help drive discovery of
Grande Games Casino Apps and in-app purchases; (2) contributing to
the creation and development of Grande Games Casino Apps; and (3)
offering and distributing the Grande Games Casino Apps through
Google Play and selling in-app purchases for the Grande Games
Casino Apps in exchange for a significant percentage of the money
paid and lost by Plaintiff and the members of the Class to gamble
using the Grande Games Casino Apps.

Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on Web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               -and-

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


GREIF PACKAGING: Gomez FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MANUEL GOMEZ, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREIF
PACKAGING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles (Case No. 20STCV46991) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 19, 2021. The clerk of
court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-02431.

The case alleges failure to properly determine overtime owed due to
miscalculation of employees' regular rate of pay in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks liquidated damages for
alleged unpaid overtime.

Greif Packaging, LLC provides industrial packaging products and
services. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Tel: (949) 526-7904
          Fax: (949) 526-7901
          E-mail: cdcatignani@vorys.com


GX ACQUISITION: Facing Celularity Merger Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
GX Acquisition Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative class action suits related to its merger with Celularity
Inc.

On January 8, 2021, the company entered into a Merger Agreement and
Plan of Reorganization with Alpha First Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and the company's direct, wholly-owned
subsidiary, Alpha Second Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and the company's direct, wholly-owned
subsidiary, and Celularity Inc., a Delaware corporation.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the closing of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and in
accordance with the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended
(DGCL), (i) First Merger Sub will merge with and into Celularity,
with Celularity surviving the First Merger as the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary; and (ii) immediately following the First
Merger and as part of the same overall transaction as the First
Merger, the Surviving Corporation will merge with and into Second
Merger Sub, with Second Merger Sub being the surviving entity of
the Second Merger.

On February 4, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported
stockholder of the Company in connection with the Celularity
Business Combination: Spero v. GX Acquisition Corp., et al., Index
No. 650812/2021 (N.Y. Sup Ct. Feb 04, 2021).

On February 26, 2021, the same purported stockholder filed an
amended complaint in the lawsuit removing the class action
allegations and certain of the other allegations.

On February 8, 2021, a complaint was filed with the Supreme Court
of the State of New York by a purported stockholder of the Company
in connection with the Celularity Business Combination: Rogalla v.
GX Acquisition Corp., et al., Index No. 650877/2021 (N.Y. Sup Ct.
Feb 08, 2021).

The Complaints name the Company and current members of the
Company's board of directors as defendants.

Additionally, the Rogalla Complaint names First Merger Sub, Second
Merger Sub and Celularity as defendants.

The Rogalla Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company's board of directors in connection with the
Business Combination and aiding and abetting the Company's board of
directors' breaches of fiduciary duties claims against the Company,
First Merger Sub, Second Merger Sub and Celularity.

These claims are based on allegations that the S-4 Registration
Statement related to the Celularity Business Combination is
materially misleading and/or omits material information concerning
the Celularity Business Combination.

The Spero Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the Company's board of directors in connection with the Business
Combination and aiding and abetting the Company's board of
directors' breaches of fiduciary duties claims against the Company.


The claims are based on the sales process and valuation of the
Company, as well as allegations that the S-4 Registration Statement
related to the Celularity Business Combination is materially
misleading and/or omits material information concerning the
Celularity Business Combination.

The Complaints generally seek injunctive relief or rescission,
unspecified damages and awards of attorneys' and experts' fees,
among other remedies. The Company believes that these allegations
are without merit.

GX Acquisition said, "These cases are in the early stages and the
Company is unable to reasonably determine the outcome or estimate
the loss, and as such, has not recorded a loss contingency.
However, if the plaintiffs are successful in enjoining the
Celularity Business Combination, the Celularity Business
Combination would not be completed. In addition, the Company could
be held liable for damages."

GX Acquisition Corp. is an early-stage blank check company
incorporated as a Delaware corporation and formed for the purpose
of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses. The company is based in New York, New York.

HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Baccari Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA GRAY and HEATHER AGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01569 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 24, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
misrepresented and falsely advertised that the baby food products
are natural, organic, grown without potentially harmful pesticides
or herbicides, and free from artificial flavors, colors and
preservatives.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant knew that
the presence of toxic heavy metals in its baby food products was
material to consumers, which is evidenced by its representations
that it ensures the ingredients it procures for its products do not
use potentially harmful pesticides or fertilizers, and uses a
rigorous quality assurance process to meet the strict standards for
organic certification. Yet the Defendant Hain chose to omit and
conceal that its baby food products contained, or were at risk of
containing, levels of heavy toxic metals, and therefore deceptively
misled Plaintiffs and members of the Classes that purchased these
products in reliance on the Defendants representations, the
Plaintiffs add.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a natural and organic beverage,
snack, specialty food, and personal care products company. The
Company's product line include grocery store foods such as organic
cookies, cooking oils, sugar free products, kosher foods, snacks,
and frozen foods, as well as organic skin, hair, and body products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               -and-

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

               -and-

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


HARRIMAN UTILITY: Hackworth Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HACKWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIMAN UTILITY BOARD, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00114 (E.D. Tenn., March 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked in the Defendant's right-of-way department as
a non-exempt employee from prior to 2015 until May of 2020.

Harriman Utility Board is a utility operating in Harriman, Roane
County, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Mark N. Foster, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
         P.O. Box 869
         Madisonville, KY 42431
         Telephone: (270) 213-1303
         E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com

HEAT MAKE: Facing Valdez Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heat Make Sense, Inc.
The case is captioned as Christina Valdez v. Heat Make Sense, Inc.
and Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00296194-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., March 10, 2020).

The suit involves employment related violation.

Heat Make Sense is located in Brooklyn, New York and is part of the
Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff Christina Valdez on behalf of all others similarly
situated is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

HELIX ENERGY: Perschke Sues Over HVAC Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE PERSCHKE, Plaintiff v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. and
HELIX WELL-OPS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00063 (S.D.
Tex., March 17, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of himself
and on behalf of others similarly situated seeking damages against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 2014
through December 17, 2020 as an HVAC Technician in which
assignments required him to work on offshore oil and gas
platforms.

The Plaintiff asserts that even though he and other similarly
situated HVAC Technicians routinely worked over 40 hours in a
workweek when on an offshore platform, 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
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid them on
a day rate basis regardless of the number of hours they worked, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, Court
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other relief to which
the Plaintiff and the Members of the Class are justly entitled.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. and Helix Well-Ops, Inc. are an
international offshore energy services company that provides
specialty services to the offshore energy industry, with a focus on
well intervention and robotics operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Kutner, Esq.
          SPAGNOLETTI LAW FIRM
          401 Louisiana St., 8th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 653-5600
          Fax: (713) 653-5656
          E-mail: mkutner@spaglaw.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Class Cert. Hearing in Forsyth Set for April 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the hearing
on the motion for preliminary class certification in Forsyth, et
al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is tentatively
scheduled for April 15, 2021.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a workforce
reduction plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017,
three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand.

Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On
December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case
pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and
require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.

On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin.

The claims of these sixteen arbitration-named plaintiffs have been
resolved. Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation
and these claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration
process. The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a
Third Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on
February 6, 2020. On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On
July 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On
October 15, 2020, Defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended
Complaint was denied.

On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Class Certification. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
was filed on February 23, 2021. A hearing date on the Motion for
Preliminary Class Certification is tentatively scheduled for April
15, 2021.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross and
Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

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

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

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

On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the individual plaintiffs.

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

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.

HOP ENERGY: Bid to Remand Callery Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN CALLERY, Plaintiff v. HOP ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-3652 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M.
Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismisses the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
state court without prejudice until after further jurisdictional
discovery is completed.

HOP provides residential and commercial heating oil and related
services to customers in eight states.  It offers variable, fixed,
and capped pricing programs for its full-service customers
receiving automatic delivery.  The prices under the variable price
program are based upon the prevailing retail price of oil, and
increase or decrease as market conditions fluctuate.  The fixed
price program provides customers with heating oil at a fixed price
over the course of a one-year period.  Under the capped price
program, a customer cannot be charged more than a set maximum price
but pays the lower "prevailing retail price" if the price of the
oil drops below the maximum price.

On April 2, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into a retail heating oil
delivery and services agreement with HOP providing for the
"automatic delivery" of heating oil to his home.  This contract was
established under HOP's capped price program.  HOP agreed to
provide up to one thousand gallons of heating oil to the Plaintiff
at a price not to exceed $2.099/gallon, plus applicable taxes.  The
Plaintiff contends he purchased this plan with the understanding
that if the prevailing retail price for oil went below
$2.099/gallon, he would be charged the lower amount.

On May 19, 2020, the Plaintiff received his first delivery of 54
gallons of heating oil at the capped rate of $2.099/gallon.  He
claims he immediately called a HOP representative to ask what the
current prevailing retail price for oil was at that time.  The
Plaintiff avers that the first HOP employee he spoke to said it was
$1.55/gallon before a different representative later told him it
was $2.49/gallon.  This interaction led the Plaintiff to believe
that HOP did not intend to honor its capped price promise and
instead would provide a fake prevailing retail price to customers.

Plaintiff Callery filed the proposed class action lawsuit against
Defendant HOP in the Chester County, Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas.  He asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law fraud,
violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law and violation of the consumer protection statutes of
the relevant states.

The Defendant removed the case, invoking jurisdiction through the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  Plaintiff Callery has
moved to remand the case to state court, contending that CAFA does
not apply.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiff's complaint is indeterminate
regarding the amount in controversy which places this requirement
in dispute.  The Complaint provides information relating to the
Plaintiff's own individual out-of-pocket loss, but does not
explicitly allege the total class damages or the damages suffered
by other individual class members.  The Plaintiff's complaint
therefore sheds "no light upon the subject of the total amount in
controversy."  Because the jurisdictional facts are disputed, a
"challenge to the amount in controversy is raised" in the
Plaintiff's motion to remand, and "no evidence or findings in the
trial court" have addressed the issue, the Defendants, as the party
alleging jurisdiction, must justify its "allegations by a
preponderance of the evidence."

To meet this burden, the Defendant estimated the potential alleged
amount in controversy by taking the Plaintiff's claimed
out-of-pocket loss of $30 and applying that amount to each putative
class member.  It states that between Jan. 1, 2016 and May 31,
2020, it delivered heating oil under the capped price program to
approximately 31,254 customers.  It assumes that every single one
of these estimated 31,254 customers suffered on average the $30
baseline loss, and then add statutory, compensatory, and punitive
damages available in each state; treble damages where available;
and 30% attorneys' fees.  Under this calculation, the Defendant
estimates the total amount in controversy as $5,494,920.

Judge Rufe opines that the Defendant's estimation rests on too many
assumptions relating to other individual class members potential
out-of-pocket losses to conclude CAFA jurisdiction exists.  The
Defendant could have supported its calculation by including
essential information such as the variability of the retail oil
prices across the states during the alleged class period, and the
potential variance in quantities and frequencies of oil deliveries
by different customers.  It instead calculated the potential amount
in controversy using a method that included the highest possible
number of alleged class members without providing any "proof to a
reasonable probability" of how that number is representative.  The
Defendant's estimation also incorporates the high-end range for
attorneys' fees and assumes recover for both statutory and treble
damages.  Even when assuming these high-end recover amounts in its
calculation, the estimated amount in controversy is essentially
right at the $5 Million threshold.

The Judge also notes that when applying the preponderance of the
evidence standard, the removing party's assumptions "must be
grounded on some reasonable inference that can be drawn from fact."
At this time, the Defendant has not yet produced the underlying
data to support its estimated damages, to which the Plaintiff does
not have access.  The Defendant has therefore not established the
amount in controversy requirement under CAFA.  However, the Judge
concludes that further jurisdictional proceedings may provide the
necessary information needed for her to make a final determination
on whether jurisdiction under CAFA exists.

As the Third Circuit has stated, the district courts have
"considerable latitude in devising the procedures it will follow to
ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction," and other courts
assessing whether the CAFA amount in controversy is satisfied have
ordered limited discovery on the issue.  The Judge holds that that
approach is appropriate in the case, where the Defendant has access
to evidence that can establish the number of potential class
members and their respective losses.  This additional discovery
will also promote judicial economy because the "facts relevant to
jurisdiction are also central to class certification and the merits
of the claims."

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Rufe dismisses the Plaintiff's
motion to remand without prejudice until after further
jurisdictional discovery is completed.  An order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dz9adek from Leagle.com.


HOP ENERGY: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Callery Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN CALLERY, Plaintiff v. HOP ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-3652 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M.
Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismisses without prejudice the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, subject to renewal, after the ordered jurisdictional
discovery is completed.

Upon consideration of her accompanying memorandum opinion, Judge
Rufe dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to remand
pending further jurisdictional discovery directed at the Class
Action Fairness Act's amount in controversy requirement.  She also
dismisses without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
subject to renewal, after the ordered jurisdictional discovery is
completed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4yw2dx83 from Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: Pearson Suit v. Governor & State Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE PEARSON et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNOR JAY
ROBERT PRITZKER, in his official capacity, and STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02888 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Franklin U.
Valderama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

In response to the global pandemic COVID-19 created, government
officials have instituted numerous safety measures, which have
restricted the movement of individuals, which in turn, have visited
financial hardships on businesses.

Individual Plaintiffs George Pearson, Steve Balich; and Business
Owner Plaintiffs Samantha L. Palya, Amanda Hamerman, Michael Judge,
Jeff Carpenter, John Brown, and James Van Dam, bring the individual
and class action against Defendants Governor Pritzker and the State
of Illinois, alleging that three Executive Orders Governor Pritzker
issued to address the COVID-19 pandemic violate the Taking Clause
of the Fifth Amendment and Illinois Constitution.  The Plaintiffs
also bring claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for substantive and
due process violations.

Governor Pritzker, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, issued an
emergency proclamation and a series of executive orders in the
spring of 2020.  Specifically, on March 9, 2020, Governor Pritzker,
acting under the authority granted to him by the Illinois Emergency
Management Agency Act (20 ILCS 3305/1 et seq.), issued a disaster
proclamation for the State of Illinois.  On March 20, 2020, he
issued Executive Order 2020-10.  The March 20 Executive Order,
among other things, ordered citizens to stay at home at their place
of residence and limited travel within the State.

On April 1, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued a second Executive Order
(No. 2020-18).  The April 1 Executive Order extended the duration
of the March 20 Executive Order to April 30, 2020.  On April 30,
2020, Governor Pritzker issued a third Executive Order (No.
2020-32) which extended the duration of the April 1 Executive Order
to May 30, 2020.  Governor Pritzker ordered all non-essential
businesses to close, prohibited individuals from travel across the
State, except essential travel, and ordered residents to stay at
home.  The Executive Orders mandated that all non-essential
businesses immediately cease operations at their physical
locations, that their employees not work at these physical
locations, and that these businesses remain closed indefinitely,
and for so long as the Executive Orders are extended and in
effect.

On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against Governor Pritzker and the State of Illinois.  The complaint
has been amended and the operative complaint contains four counts.

Business Owner Plaintiffs bring three counts: Count I alleges a
violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Count II
alleges a violation of Substantive Due Process under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983; and Count IV alleges a violation of Procedural Due
Process under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Individual Plaintiffs bring
one count only, Count III alleging a violation of Substantive Due
Process under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  In their global request for
relief, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory
relief, an injunction, and several other forms of relief.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They advance four primary
arguments in support of their motion to dismiss.  First, the
Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars all claims for
damages and equitable relief against the State and Governor
Pritzker in his official capacity.  Second, they contend that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
request for prospective injunctive relief.  Third, they assert that
the Plaintiffs cannot state a viable claim under the Takings Clause
because the Governor's actions did not constitute a taking under
the United States or Illinois Constitutions.  Finally, they argue
that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for violation of their
substantive or procedural due process rights.

Judge Valderama evaluates the Plaintiffs' claims based on the
nature of their requested relief.

Monetary Relief

The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for their lost revenue,
profits, and costs.  The Defendants first contend that the
Plaintiffs cannot bring a Section 1983 claim for damages against
the State or Governor Pritzker for acting in his official capacity
as neither Governor Pritzker nor the State of Illinois is a
"person" subject to suit under Section 1983 for damages.

Judge Valderama notes that the Plaintiffs do not challenge the
referenced case law regarding Section 1983 or the Eleventh
Amendment, but instead insist that their suit is not one for
damages, but rather, one seeking to compel the State to award just
compensation.  He says the Plaintiffs' construction of their claims
as constitutional violations does not obscure that which is plain:
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages from the State's treasury for
the Plaintiffs' alleged financial losses occasioned by Governor
Pritzker's Executive Orders.  The Eleventh Amendment, however, bars
such suits.  Therefore, he grants the Defendants' motion and
dismisses those claims.

Injunctive Relief

The Plaintiffs, in addition to seeking monetary damages, also seek
an order "enjoining Governor Pritzker from enforcing his Executive
Orders until such time as a mechanism is enacted to provide just
compensation for affected businesses and appellate review."  The
Defendants again move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief on the basis that such relief is also barred by
the Eleventh Amendment.  The Defendants also argue that, to the
extent Plaintiffs seek prospective relief, their claims based on
expired Executive Orders are moot.

Judge Valderama reviews the mootness argument first, as it relates
to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs contend that their claims are not moot because even
after the April 30 Executive Order expired, businesses were again
closed on a county-by-county basis, and that Governor Pritzker's
Order "did not terminate, was not revoked, and provides for
application in the future should certain statistical reports again
rise above an arbitrary number."  However, they again cite to no
authority in support of their arguments, and point to no
allegations in the Amended Complaint or facts in other documents of
which the Court could take judicial notice, that constitute a
"reasonable showing" that they will again be subject to an
allegedly illegal Executive Order.  Therefore, any claim for
prospective relief does not fall under the "capable-of-repetition"
exception to mootness, and the Plaintiffs' claim for prospective
injunctive relief must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Judge opines that the essence of the Plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief is money from the State of Illinois.  While the
Plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in McDonough, attempt to cloak their
dispute as one involving the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause
of the United States Constitution, once stripped of this garb, it
is clear that what the Plaintiffs really seek is to recoup from the
State of Illinois money they allegedly lost due to the Executive
Orders.  Notably, again, the Plaintiffs' Response fails to address,
much less distinguish, the numerous cases cited by Defendants and
fails to develop any cogent arguments in opposition to the
Defendants' motion.  The Judge grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is it relates to the Plaintiffs' claims seeking injunctive
relief.

Declaratory Relief

The Plaintiffs also request a declaratory judgment "that issuance
and enforcement of Governor Pritzker's Executive Orders is an
unconstitutional taking without just compensation and a violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Judge opines that even though the Court has denied injunctive
relief to the Plaintiffs, it can still review the Plaintiff's
claims relating to declaratory relief.  Yet, this request does not
save the Plaintiffs' claims, as they still cannot overcome the
Eleventh Amendment.  The Defendants correctly point out that the
Plaintiffs' declaratory request, if granted, would force the State
to pay compensation from the State's treasury for past wrong.

To the extent the Plaintiffs seek prospective relief, the Judge
notes that such relief would result in payment of just compensation
and compensatory damages to the Plaintiffs.  The Seventh Circuit
has held that "declaratory relief should not be awarded where the
eleventh amendment bars an award of monetary or injunctive relief;
otherwise the declaratory relief would operate as means of avoiding
the amendment's bar."  Again, the Plaintiffs fail to address
Defendants' arguments or this incontrovertible legal authority in
their Response.

The Judge again finds that the Eleventh Amendment bars the
Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief.  Therefore, he grants the
Defendants' motion as to this claim, and dismisses the claim.  He
need not address the Defendants' remaining arguments.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderama grants the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  He dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims relating to
prospective injunctive relief under Rule 12(b)(1) as moot.  The
Eleventh Amendment bars the remainder of the Plaintiffs' claims,
which are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).  Since the Plaintiffs do
not request leave to file an amended complaint in their Response
and the Judge finds no basis to amend their claims, as such
attempts appear to be futile based on the Eleventh Amendment, he
dismisses the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint with prejudice.  The
civil case is terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52b9b375 from
Leagle.com.


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the securities class action suit headed by Edgardo
Canez, is still pending.

On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our
press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a result of the
failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting
revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection
with his former position with MiMedx, Inc.

The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff on behalf of the putative class.

On November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
a putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly-traded company securities from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint
against the company, and certain current and former directors and
officers.

The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the
previously filed complaint.

The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs
and unspecified damages.

On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, and
on March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending.

Intelligent said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously."

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

Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross, Georgia.

INTERFACE INC: Swanson Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Interface Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended January 3, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
securities class action suit entitled, Swanson v. Interface, Inc.
et al. (case :120-cv-05518).

On November 12, 2020, the Company, the Company's current and former
president and chief executive officer, and its current chief
financial officer were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al. (case :120-cv-05518).

The lawsuit is a federal securities law class action that alleges
that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

The specific allegations relate to the subject matter of the
concluded SEC investigation described above. The complaint does not
quantify the damages sought.

The Company is evaluating the lawsuit, but believes that it is
without merit and that the Company has good defenses to it.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the action
and any other substantially similar ones that may be filed against
it in the future.

Interface Inc. is a worldwide leader in design, production and
sales of modular carpet, also known as carpet tile. As a global
company with a reputation for high quality, reliability and premium
positioning, the company markets modular carpet under the
established brand names Interface(R) and FLOR(R), and the company
markets LVT under the brand Interface(R). On August 7, 2018, the
Company acquired nora Holding GmbH, a worldwide leader in the
rubber flooring category under the established nora brands
norament(R) and noraplan(R). The company is based in Atlanta,
Georgia.

IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al. and
Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., class action suits.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. IVERIC bio, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. IVERIC bio,
Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The CAC
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 2, 2015 and December 12, 2016.


The CAC generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
results of the Company's Phase 2b trial and the prospects of the
Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF
agents for the treatment of wet AMD.

The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued an
order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the CAC.


On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants
filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On August 11,
2020, the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

This case is currently in the discovery phase.

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

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

JAMAICA SERVICE: Wilson Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANE WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JAMAICA SERVICE PROGRAM FOR OLDER ADULTS, INC., WILLIAM COLLINS,
JR. And BEVERLY COLLIER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01263 (E.D.N.Y., March 9,
2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
damages, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and under McKinney's Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former hourly paid and non-exempt
employees (Hourly Employees) of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have engaged in illegal
and improper wage practices that have deprived Hourly Employees of
millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation. Allegedly,
these practices include improperly penalizing Hourly Employees by
configuring the time clocks in the Defendants' facilities to round
down and artificially reduce the amount of time Hourly Employees
are credited with performing work, as well as compensating Hourly
Employees based only upon their scheduled hours rather than the
actual time they clocked in and out; automatically deducting time
for meal breaks when employees are performing work during that
time; improperly paying Hourly Employees on a bi-monthly basis; and
improperly delaying the payment of wages to Hourly Employees for
approximately 8-12 weeks on numerous occasions throughout the
relevant time period.

JSPOA is a multi-service social service agency founded in 1972 that
serves 5,00 adults directly and reaches another 15,000 people
indirectly each year. More specifically, JSPOA provides services to
senior citizens, including sponsoring five senior centers --
Friendship Center Adult Day Care, Rockaway Boulevard Senior Center,
Theodora G. Jackson Adult Center, International Center, and Shelton
Center -- which provide hot meals, information and referral,
educational programs, health promotion, socialization, recreation,
transportation, and inter-generational programs for older adults.
In total, Defendants employ approximately 100 Hourly Employees.

Mr. Collins is the President of JSPOA and has overall control and
authority concerning all non-exempt employee policies, including
compensation at all JSPOA facilities. Mr. Collier is the Executive
Director of JSPOA and maintains the day-to-day operations of all
JSPOA facilities, including how all non-exempt employees at each
facility clock in/out and are compensated for their work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
          Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
                  lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Court Narrows Claims in Duncan Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY DUNCAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION d/b/a JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-00495-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Louisville Division:

   (i) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Partial
       Motion to Dismiss; and

  (ii) denies the Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

Plaintiffs Duncan, Robert Newton, Netney Taylorn, Sandra Easleyn,
Kevan Sheppard, and Sandra Spaulding, comprise a group of African
American employees who have worked in the Operations Services
Division ("OSD") of the Jefferson County Board of Education, doing
business as Jefferson County Public Schools ("JCPS").  The
Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of themselves and four
subclasses of employees alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. Sections
1981 and 1983, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS 344.040,
344.280.  Easley also brought claims of race and age discrimination
in violation of federal law.

In addition to JCPS, the following individuals are named as
Defendants in their official and individual capacities: Dr. Michael
Raisor, Chief Operations Officer of the OSD; Robert Tanne, Director
of Property Management of the OSD; Kelly Kirk, General Manager and
Housekeeping Manager of the OSD; and Dr. Anthony Johnson, Training
Specialist of the OSD ("Individual Defendants").  The Defendant
then removed the case to federal court.

The Defendants filed an Answer responding to the Plaintiffs'
allegations and notifying the Court in a footnote that a
dispositive motion attacking the sufficiency of the allegations on
behalf of the Individual Defendants would follow.  They then moved
to strike the class allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(f),
and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(1) and 12(b)(6).  The motions have been fully briefed.

Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the claims asserted against
the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities, and under
Sections 1981 and 1983.  In response, the Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendants' motion is untimely and should be treated as a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Defendants do not
dispute.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Easley's race discrimination claims
against the Individual Defendants and her age discrimination
against all Defendants, as Title VII neither provides liability for
individuals, nor prohibits age discrimination.  In their response,
the Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Defendants' arguments
concerning the Plaintiff Easley's claims under Title VII are
well-taken.  As Plaintiffs the concede that Easley's claims cannot
proceed against the Individual Defendants, nor impose liability for
age discrimination, Judge Stivers will dismiss these claims.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' KRS 344.040 claims
against the Individual Defendants, arguing that KRS 344.040 does
not impose individual liability, and the allegations in the
Complaint are insufficient to allege a conspiracy under KRS
344.280.  In their response, the Plaintiffs likewise concede that
the claims under KRS Chapter 344 claims are not being asserted
against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Accordingly, the motion will be granted on this basis.

The Defendants further seek dismissal of the Section 1983 claims
against the Individual Defendants for failure to state a claim and
lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity for the Individual
Defendants, in their official capacity, and JCPS, as a state actor.
The Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Defendants' argument that
the Individual Defendants are immune from suit in their official
capacities.  Because the Plaintiffs have sued JCPS in the action,
these official capacity claims against the Individual Defendants
will be dismissed.

The Defendants also contend the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim
against the Individual Defendants for violating Section 1981 and
Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs responded that they have alleged
enough facts for the Court to conclude the Defendants were involved
in the hiring process, and that it is more than enough to satisfy
their burden.

In addition, although Newton and Taylor do not claim that Raisor
personally denied their promotion, nor did Raisor explain why he
wanted to fill the position "ASAP," but have alleged Raisor's
personal involvement in deciding who ultimately made the hiring
decisions.  The allegation that Clinkscales was supposed to be a
hiring committee member and sought out Raisor's approval to be
included, could support the inference that he was involved in the
makeup of the committee and thereby participated in the hiring
decision. This is sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that
Raisor "at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly
acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending
officers."  For this reason, Judge Stivers holds that the
Plaintiffs have stated a failure to hire or promote claim against
Raisor in his individual capacity.  Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion is denied as to this claim.

Motion to Strike

The Defendants have also moved to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations from their Complaint.  The Plaintiffs note in their
response that the Defendants' Motion to Strike was made after they
filed their Answer, so it is therefore untimely.  The Defendants
respond that their motion to strike was not premature because it is
governed by Rule 23 and not Rule 12(f).

Besides the Defendants' motion being untimely, Judge Stivers
declines to consider the merits of the motion at this time.  The
Defendants will have ample opportunity to challenge the sufficiency
of the class allegations at the certification stage, and the
Plaintiffs are entitled to have the opportunity to conduct some
discovery in support of their class allegations. Accordingly, the
Judge denies the motion.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Stivers grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff Easley's Title
VII claims against the Defendants Raisor, Tanner, Kirk, and
Johnson; and her age discrimination claim against all the
Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs' KRS
344.040 and 344.280 claims against Defendants Raisor, Tanner, Kirk,
and Johnson are dismissed without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs' 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against Tanner, Kirk, and Johnson are
dismissed without prejudice.  The Judge denies the Defendants'
Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/22cb9a9c from
Leagle.com.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Summary Judgment Bid in Carlisle Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL. v. NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL.,
SECTION: "H," Civil Action No. 16-3767 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana denies:

     (i) the Motion for Summary Judgment by former Jefferson
         Parish Sheriff Newell Normand and current Jefferson
         Parish Sheriff Joseph Lopinto;

    (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
         Against Sheriff; and

   (iii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Respecting
         Sheriff Claims and to Issue Notice to Class Members.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the
Jefferson Parish Drug Court is conducted. Plaintiffs Carlisle and
Emile Heron were convicted of the possession of various controlled
substances and, as part of their sentences, enrolled in Drug Court.
The gist of the Plaintiffs' claims is that the Drug Court
administrators deprived them of due process in various ways,
leading to unlawful incarcerations and other negative
consequences.

Relevant to the pending Motions are the Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Lopinto ("Sheriff") in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Jefferson Parish.  The Plaintiffs brought "putative
class action claims against the Sheriff for declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages under Section 1983, challenging the
imposition of jail time for alleged probation violations by Drug
Court participants."

On Sept. 25, 2018, the Court held that the Supreme Court case of
Heck v. Humphrey precluded the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Sheriff to the extent they sought relief for detention based on
judicial incarceration orders that had not been invalidated.
Following this Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs' only remaining
claims against the Sheriff were those alleging that the Sheriff's
Office imprisoned Plaintiffs and denied them good time credit
either without, or in contravention to, a judicial order.

On Dec. 13, 2018, the Sheriff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
in which he argued that the Plaintiffs were, at all relevant times,
incarcerated pursuant to a valid court order.  On Aug. 7, 2019, the
Court granted the Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment in part,
finding (1) that valid Drug Court orders undermine most of the
Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful imprisonment and (2) that the
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were wrongfully denied
good time credit.  The Court did, however, allow the Plaintiffs'
claims for wrongful imprisonment to proceed as to two specific
periods of incarceration for which the Court could not find
evidence of the Sheriff's lawful authority to jail them.

For Plaintiff Carlisle, this is his period of incarceration from
Aug. 25, 2015 to Sept. 1, 2015.  For Plaintiff Heron, this is his
period of incarceration from mid-to-late June 2016 to July 20,
2016.  Today, the Plaintiffs' only remaining claims against the
Sheriff are that the Sheriff's Office held them in prison during
these two discrete periods without a Drug Court order directing the
Office to do so.

Now before the Court are three Motions concerning the Plaintiffs'
claims against the Sheriff.  The first Motion is Defendant Sheriff
Lopinto's second Motion for Summary Judgment in which he provides
new evidence that purportedly demonstrates the Sheriff's legal
authority to incarcerate the Plaintiffs for the time periods at
issue.  The second Motion before the Court is the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, wherein they ask the Court to
find that the Sheriff's Office incorrectly reported their jail time
to the Louisiana Department of Safety and Corrections ("DOC").  The
third and final Motion before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Certify Class Respecting Sheriff Claims and to Issue Notice to
Class Members.  All Motions are opposed.

The Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment

In the Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Sheriff provides
new evidence that arguably demonstrates that the Plaintiffs were at
all relevant times incarcerated pursuant to a valid court order.

In his current Motion for Summary Judgment, Sheriff Lopinto
presents two new pieces of evidence to demonstrate that the Drug
Court ordered Carlisle's imprisonment from Aug. 25, 2015 until
Sept. 1, 2015.  First, the Sheriff presents an "Order of
Attachment" dated Aug. 25, 2015, wherein the Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish is directed to "attach the body of Taylor E. Carlisle" and
have him appear in court "to answer for a contempt in neglecting or
refusing to attend before said Court as a Defendant."  Second, the
Sheriff presents one page from Carlisle's "Criminal History Report"
which states that, on Aug. 25, 2015, Carlisle was arrested pursuant
to a Drug Court attachment and "needs to be held brought to Drug
Court Tuesday September 1, 2015."

Judge Milazzo finds these two documents alone insufficient to
warrant summary judgment in the Sheriff's favor.  First, she cannot
ignore the inconsistency between the Aug. 25, 2015 minute entry,
which states that Carlisle appeared in court, and the Aug. 25, 2015
Order of Attachment, which states that Carlisle is to be arrested
for his failure to appear.  Second, although the Criminal History
Report indicates that Carlisle was to be held and brought to Drug
Court on Sept. 1, 2015, the report does not indicate who gave the
officer this order.  Moreover, the Sheriff does not provide this
Court with affidavits or testimony that would clarify or otherwise
authenticate the documents.

Mr. Carlisle asserts in his affidavit that he was arrested outside
of the courthouse without cause after making his appearance in Drug
Court on Aug. 25, 2015 and that the Order of Attachment was
fraudulently created to support his unlawful arrest. The Sheriff
has not provided this Court with proper summary judgment evidence
to refute Carlisle's assertion.  Accordingly, the Sheriff's Motion
for Summary Judgment on Carlisle's remaining claim against him is
denied.

In the Sheriff's current Motion for Summary Judgment, the Sheriff
now presents a previously unsubmitted document titled "Court
Disposition," dated June 17, 2016, on Jefferson Parish Sheriff's
Office letterhead.  The Court Disposition bears the typed signature
of a clerk, Jaime Plaisance, and indicates that Heron "is to be
held for revocations."  The Sheriff argues that this document
suffices to demonstrate that the Plaintiff's incarceration from
June 2016 until his revocation hearing on July 20, 2016 was
pursuant to a valid court order.

Judge Milazzo disagrees.  She says, unlike the other minute entries
upheld by the Court, the Court Disposition does not bear the seal
of the 24th Judicial District Court or otherwise indicate that it
is a court-sanctioned document.  In the deposition of Deputy Steven
Abadie, the 30(b)(6) representative of the Sheriff and
Administrator of JPCC, Abadie stated that court dispositions are
ordinarily written by sheriff's deputies but that a typed document
like the one at issue was likely supplied by "court staff."  In any
event, Abadie testified that he did not understand the document to
be a court order.  The Sheriff's Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff Heron's claim is therefore denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

In the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, they ask
the Court to find in their favor on their purported claim that,
after they were revoked from the Drug Court program, the Sheriff
failed to accurately report Plaintiffs' time spent in JPCC to the
DOC.  The Plaintiffs thus contend that the Sheriff unlawfully
deprived them of credit for time served in contravention to orders
from the 24th Judicial District Court.

However, as the Court has explained many times before, this claim
is not properly before the Court.  Moreover, any claims that the
Plaintiffs had timely alleged regarding the Sheriff's failure to
credit good time have been dismissed.  The only claims that remain
against the Sheriff are (i) Plaintiff Carlisle's claim that he was
wrongfully held in JPCC from Aug. 25, 2015 to Sept. 1, 2015 and
(ii) Plaintiff Heron's claim that he was wrongfully held from
mid-to-late June 2016 to July 20, 2016.  To the extent that
Plaintiffs contend that they have additional claims against the
Sheriff, the Judge emphasizes that these are not before the Court.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Respecting Sheriff Claims and
to Issue Notice to Class Members

In their Motion to Certify, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
their claims against the Sheriff as a class action.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of Drug Court
participants sentenced to jail time at JPCC for whom, despite
judicial order and/or in violation of the Drug Court statute, and
La. Code Crim Proc Art. 880, and Art. 900 and related regulations,
the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish did not calculate and provide
credit for time in custody upon the probationers' revocation and
re-sentencing to hard labor to be served in the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections.

Judge Milazzo holds that the Plaintiffs' defined class is a
restatement of their proposed inaccurate reporting claim.  As
explained, this claim is not before the Court.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify such a class is denied.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class
relating to their wrongful imprisonment claims, their request is
also denied.  The Plaintiffs each only have one, highly
fact-specific claim remaining against the Sheriff.  They therefore
have not demonstrated that they can "fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class" or that the certified questions
"predominate."

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify.  Their putative class action claims against the Sheriff
are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5hd4xaff from Leagle.com.


JOE'S ENTERPRISES: Reyes Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MADRID REYES and REINALDO MORAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOE'S ENTERPRISES
LLC D/B/A/ SLIDER JOE'S, PARMA MARKET LLC D/B/A PARMA MARKET,
PARMAGIANNI ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A PARMAGIANNI, JOHN EVANGELISTA,
and ANGELO REDA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01637 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and Class members overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Madrid Reyes was employed at Slider Joe's as a grill man from
approximately July 2013 until September 2020 and at Parma Market as
a cashier, phone order taker, food preparer and food purchaser,
from approximately May 2019 until September 2020.

Mr. Moran was employed at Slider Joe's as a grill man from
approximately February 2015 through 2017, and again from March 2020
until December 2020. He was also employed at Parmagianni as a pizza
man and food preparer from approximately February 2015 through
2017, and again from March 2020 until December 2020.

Joe's Enterprises LLC owns and operates an American restaurant
named Slider Joe's, with a principal place of business located at
189 North Long Beach Road, Rockville Centre, New York.

Parma Market LLC owns and operates an Italian deli and market named
Parma Market, with its principal place of business located at 218A
North Long Beach Road, Rockville Centre, New York.

Parmagianni Enterprises LLC owns and operates an Italian restaurant
and pizzeria named Parmagianni, with its principal place of
business located at 212 North Long Beach Road, Rockville Centre,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
              
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Key Suit in Northern District of Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. The case is captioned as Key v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01587-VC (N.D. Cal., March 5,
2020).

The lawsuit arises from fraud-related issues demanding $5 million
in damages and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products.[BN]

Plaintiff La Wanda Renee Key, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
          SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
          Land Title Building 1910
          100 S. Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (267) 328-5245
          andrew@sciollalawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

JUUL LABS: Puente Suit Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN PUENTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02219
(N.D. Cal., March 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for common law fraud, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, and the
Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices 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 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 asserts.

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.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., 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. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Russell D. Paul, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
         1818 Market St., Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: rpaul@bm.net

KARAMOLEGKOS ELEFTHERIOS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
XAVIERE HATTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KARAMOLEGKOS ELEFTHERIOS, Individually and d/b/a DIVA'S
MEN'S CLUB; JUSTIN KERR, an individual; DELEON BURLESON, an
individual, HARRY KARR, an individual, TONY DOE, an individual,
"LEFTI" DOE, an individual, DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex., March 9,
2020) asserts claims against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks,
unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing under the the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' principal place of business
located at 4134 Felter Lane, Austin, TX 78744. Diva's allegedly
failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for
all hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. sections 206 and 207 of
the FLSA.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct violates the
FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for
their overtime work at a rate of one and one- half times their
regular rate of pay.

The Defendants operate a night club in Austin, Texas.[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
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com

KELLY AUTOMOTIVE: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sagar Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOGENDRA SAGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10540 (D. Mass., March 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using
an automatic telephone dialing system in order to promote its
vehicle inventory and related services without obtaining prior
express written consent.

Kelly Automotive Group, Inc. is a company that owns and operates
eight motor vehicle dealerships in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Jason R. Campbell, Esq.
         CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
         The Schraffts Center Power House
         529 Main Street, Suite P200
         Charlestown, MA 02129
         Telephone: (617) 872-8652
         E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com

                 - and –

         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and –

         Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
         IJH LAW
         1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (786) 496-4469
         E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com

KFORCE INC: Misclassifies Recruiters, Cook Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA COOK, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02453 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2021) is a collective and class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a Talent
Representative, claims that the Defendant misclassified her and
other Recruiters as exempt from state and federal overtime laws.
Despite working in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks
during the last three years, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and other similarly
situated Recruiters seeking declaratory relief from the Defendant
for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and/or damages and
penalties as permitted by applicable law, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and other benefits recoverable under applicable law
and interest.

KForce, Inc. is a professional staffing agency that provides
staffing services to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
          ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP
          3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 389-6050
          Fax: (213) 389-0663
          E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com

                - and –

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com

                - and –

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl. NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Tel: (202) 744-1407
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

                - and –

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles St., Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Tel: (410) 244-7005
          Fax: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  kaburgy@nicholllaw.om


KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Cozier Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C. The case is styled as Carol Cozier, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01722 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2021).

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

Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy is a third party, debt collection law
firm and collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


KRISTIN FARMER: Kelly Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William L. Kelly, et al.,
v. Kristin Farmer, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00649-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their bid for class certification of past,
current, and future inmates who were unconstitutionally denied
re-sentence hearings due to state courts applying its Res judicata
law in a distinct, selective, discriminatory manner that violates
their 14th Amendment Rights.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cDTbRm
at no extra charge.[CC]


L'OASIS DELI: Tapia Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VICENTE TAPIA FLORES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. L'OASIS DELI & GROCERY INC (D/B/A L'OASIS
OPEN GRILL), KHADIJA OUAFIQ, and JOSE R. AGUILAR, Case No.
1:21-cv-01233 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021) seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law as well as the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that he was ostensibly employed as a
delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable
part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but
not limited to taking out the trash, organizing the sodas and beers
and cooking (the "non-tipped duties"). He adds that he worked for
the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay him
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, he added.

Mr. Tapia was employed as a delivery worker, cook, and deli worker
at the Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located at
489 Grand Street, Brooklyn, NY 11211 under the name "L'Oasis Open
Grill."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEO PHARMA: Kamlade Files Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LEO Pharma Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Brian Kamlade, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. LEO Pharma Inc., LEO Pharma A/S,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00522-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 29, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

LEO Pharma -- https://www.leo-pharma.us/ -- is a global
pharmaceutical company specializing in dermatology and critical
care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER, PA
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com


LIBERTY LATIN: VTR Finance Defends Multiple Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Latin America Ltd. 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 VTR Finance is a
defendant in class action suits related to consumer complaints
regarding VTR's broadband service and capacity during the
pandemic.

On August 25, 2020, VTR Finance was notified that the Chilean
National Consumer Authority ("SERNAC", the Spanish acronym for
Servicio Nacional del Consumidor) had filed a class action
complaint against VTR in the 14th Civil Court of Santiago.

The complaint relates to consumer complaints regarding VTR's
broadband service and capacity during the pandemic and raises
claims regarding, among other things, VTR's disclosure of its
broadband speeds and aggregate capacity availability and VTR's
response to address the causes of service instability during the
pandemic.

VTR was also notified in August about two additional class action
complaints filed by two Chilean consumer associations (ODECU and
AGRECU) making similar claims and allegations. The class action
complaint of ODECU was filed in the 21st Civil Court of Santiago,
and the class action complaint of AGRECU was filed in the 26th
Civil Court of Santiago.

The complaint of SERNAC and ODECU seeks (i) the Court declare that
VTR has infringed the rules of the Consumer Protection Law; (ii)
the responsibility of VTR for such infractions and, if so,
establish the corresponding fines; and (iii) compensatory damages.
In the case of AGRECU, the complaint only seeks compensatory
damages.

On October 22, 2020, VTR was notified of a fourth class action
complaint filed by Conadecus in the 16th Civil Court of Santiago
alleging that VTR did not adhere to certain call center, technical
visit and service level requirements under applicable law.

Liberty said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit, in particular as it relates to VTR's
service and response during the pandemic and intends to defend the
complaints vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length
of time that these actions will be ongoing. Additionally, a
liability, if any, or a reasonable range of loss is not currently
determinable based upon the current facts and circumstances of
these claims."

Liberty Latin America Ltd. provides various telecommunications
services. Its services primarily include video, broadband Internet,
fixed-line telephony, and mobile services.  Liberty Latin America
Ltd. was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Denver, Colorado.

LITHKO CONTRACTING: Lansing Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAHLEN LANSING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LITHKO CONTRACTING, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00152-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, March 5, 2021) seeks unpaid wages, including overtime
wages, and all other available relief, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and the Collective Class
Members to perform the manual tasks associated with its concrete
construction projects. The Plaintiff and Collective Class Members
typically worked at least 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendant is a full-service concrete contracting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Sandra Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LM General Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Martin Sandra, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LM General Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01297-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 30, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

LM General Insurance Company -- https://www.libertymutual.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company provides insurance
services for auto, boats, equipment breakdowns, inland marine,
bonds, property, and home.[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 -

          Brittany Ann Barto, Esq.
          Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Pkwy, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 876-8100
          Email: brittany@hallandlampros.com
                 chall@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

          William Thomas Lacy, Jr., Esq.
          LINDSEY & LACY, PC
          200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280
          Peachtree City, GA 30269
          Phone: (770) 486-8445
          Fax: (770) 486-8889
          Email: tlacy@llptc.com


LOCAL WEST: Tejeda Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL TEJEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOCAL WEST, LLC d/b/a LOCAL WEST d/b/a LOCAL
NYC; 45 MERCER RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a GALLI; HOST RG 54, LLC d/b/a
BILL'S TOWNHOUSE d/b/a BILL'S; HOST RG 40, LLC d/b/a PRINTERS
ALLEY; CAMP 1382, LLC d/b/a CAMPAGNOLA; RED ONE PLAZA, LLC d/b/a
LUCY'S CANTINA ROYALE; HOST 1373, LLC d/b/a SEFTON, CURT HUEGEL,
ASH HEDLI, JOHN W. HEIL III, SEI HOON CHU, RICHARD WEISFISCH, and
PATRICK CREMIN, Defendants, Case No. 153108/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., March 30, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay due to invalid tip credit and time shaving,
illegally retaining gratuities, failing to provide proper wage
statements with every payment of wages, and failing to properly
provide proper wage and hour notices at date of hiring and
annually.

Mr. Tejeda worked as a busboy for Defendants' Local West Restaurant
located at One Penn Plaza, West Store Roof, New York, New York from
March 2017 until May 2017.

Local West, LLC, doing business as Local NYC, is a restaurant owner
and operator, with its principal place of business at One Penn
Plaza, West Store Roof, New York, New York.

45 Mercer Restaurant, LLC, doing business as Galli, is a restaurant
owner and operator, with a principal place of business at 45 Mercer
St. New York, New York.

Host RG 54, LLC, doing business as Bill's Townhouse and Bill's, is
a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of
business at 57 East 54th Street, New York, New York.

Host RG 40, LLC, doing business as Printers Alley, is a restaurant
owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 215
West 40th Street, New York, New York.

Camp 1382, LLC, doing business as Campagnola, is a restaurant owner
and operator, with its principal place of business at 1382 1st
Avenue, New York, New York.

Red One Plaza, LLC, doing business as Lucy's Cantina Royale, is a
restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business
at One Penn Plaza, New York, New York.

Host 1373, LLC, doing business as Sefton, is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal place of business at 1373 1st Avenue,
New York, New York. [BN]

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

LODGE MANUFACTURING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Williams Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LODGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02533 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 24, 2021) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, https://www.lodgecastiron.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Lodge Manufacturing Company manufacturers and markets cooking and
cooking accessories products. [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
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Astorga Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ASTORGA, et al.,
v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09805-AB-AGR
(C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court finds that class certification is inappropriate because
the Plaintiffs have not established the degree of numerosity and
commonality and typicality required by Rule 23(a). The Court
therefore denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
without Prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file an amended Motion for
Class Certification within 30 days from the date of this Order.

On September 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs Christina Astorga and Hugo
Padilla attended a protest in South Los Angeles called "Justice for
Dijon Kizzee." The Plaintiff Padilla rode his bicycle and
livestreamed the event from a Samsung S8 phone. (Id.) Both were
subsequently arrested and cited for failure to disperse (Astorga)
and unlawful assembly (Padilla). The Plaintiffs Kiyoko Dodson and
Ryan Michael Dodson attended the September 25, 2020 "Justice for
Breonna Taylor" protest in West Hollywood. The Plaintiff Ryan
Michael Dodson, who was driving his vehicle alongside protestors,
was arrested and cited for failure to disperse and reckless
driving. The Plaintiff Kiyoko Dodson was not arrested. All named
Plaintiffs allege seizure and retention of personal property.

The Plaintiff Christina Astorga’s cell phone was confiscated at
the protest, and when she was booked at the police station, her
belt, shoes, car keys, backpack, and military grade googles were
seized.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mkvLnr at no extra charge.[CC]


LOUISIANA COLLEGE: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Louisiana College.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Louisiana College, Case No.
1:21-cv-02694 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021).

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

Louisiana College -- https://lacollege.edu/ -- is a private,
Baptist coeducational college of liberal arts and sciences with
selected professional programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Visnack Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court
ruled in favor of a motion by the Company to compel arbitration for
Michael Visnack under the existing agreement between the Company
and Mr. Visnack.

On June 29, 2020, Michael Visnack, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
all current and former store managers, and others similarly
situated.  

The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including, among other items, failure to pay wages and overtime,
wage statement violations, meal and rest break violations, unpaid
reimbursements and waiting time, and engaging in unfair business
practices.

The Visnack Plaintiffs seek certification of a class period
beginning September 20, 2019, through the date of Notice of Class
Certification, if granted. The Visnack Plaintiffs did not quantify
any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they seek unspecified amounts for each of the causes of action such
as unpaid wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods
and rest breaks, payroll record and wage statement violations,
failure to reimburse expenses and waiting time, liquidated and/or
punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

On December 14, 2020, the court ruled in favor of a motion by the
Company to compel arbitration for Michael Visnack under the
existing agreement between the Company and Mr. Visnack. The court
declined to outright dismiss the putative class claims but stayed
the putative class claims and Private Attorneys General Act claims
pending arbitration. The court denied plaintiff's request to
conduct discovery.

The Company is evaluating the Visnack Putative Class Employees'
claims and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has
been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have
a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition and
liquidity.

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason,
Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie.

In August  2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training,
installation sales managers and similarly situated current and
former employees alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law by classifying the
Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class
Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning
three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling
period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason
Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and
(ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior
to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the
disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class
Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in
connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period.  

In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.  The litigation is in the discovery
stage, which was extended by the Court from May 2020 to December
18, 2020, and the deadline has again been extended to May 30, 2021.


On January 6, 2021, the magistrate judge ruled in favor of a motion
by the Company to exclude from the Mason Putative Class the claims
of 55 opt-in plaintiffs who participated in a prior California
state class-action settlement that released all claims arising from
the same facts on which the Mason matter is based.

The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees' claims and
continues to defend the matter vigorously. The Company has agreed
to participate in a mediation early in the second quarter of 2021.


Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, and
the fact that a significant amount of discovery has yet to be
completed, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this matter. Any such
losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect,
individually or collectively, on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Savidis Bid for Class Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Savidis
Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action covering the prior
four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint to the date
of class certification, as well as a subclass of class members who
separated their employment within three years of the filing of the
suit to the date of class certification.

On April 9, 2020, Lumber Liquidators was served with a lawsuit
filed by Tanya Savidis, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  Ms. Savidis filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on
March 6, 2020, on behalf of all current and former Lumber
Liquidators employees employed as non-exempt employees.  

The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including, among other items, failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon
separation within the required time, and engaging in unfair
business practices.

On or about May 22, 2020, the Savidis Plaintiffs provided notice to
the California Department of Industrial Relations requesting they
be permitted to seek penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act for the same substantive alleged violations
asserted in the Complaint.

The Savidis Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action
covering the prior four-year period prior to the filing of the
complaint to the date of class certification, as well as a subclass
of class members who separated their employment within three years
of the filing of the suit to the date of class certification.

The Savidis Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek statutory penalties,
unspecified amounts for unpaid wages, benefits, and penalties,
interest, and other damages.

The Company disputes the Savidis Putative Class Employees' claims
and intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.

LUMITY LIFE: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. LUMITY LIFE INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02042-RA
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.lumitylife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people
in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

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

The Defendant is an online retailer of nutritional supplements and
skin care products for adults. Some of the Defendant's products are
also available at third-party retailers in New York, including
Dangene, located at 66 East 55th Street, New York, New York, and
Eden Day Spa, located at 388 Broadway, New York, New York. Through
the Website, customers can view and purchase Defendant's entire
line of products, including daily supplements for men and women,
sleeping aides, supplements to help with energy and focus, facial
oils, facial cleansers and similar items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392.4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com

LYNN UNIVERSITY: Bid to Dismiss/Strike Class Claims in Gibson Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND GIBSON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNN UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CIV-81173-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge Rodolfo A.
Ruiz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike
Plaintiff's Class Action Allegations.

Plaintiff Gibson, an undergraduate student at Lynn, contends that
he and similarly situated students contracted with Lynn for "live
on-campus instruction and access to campus facilities," and were
deprived of the benefit of their bargain when Lynn closed its
facilities and moved its courses online due to the COVID-19
pandemic.  The Plaintiff alleges that Lynn's relationship with its
students "is based on the terms and conditions set forth inter
alia, in Lynn's Academic Catalog, in its University Policies, and
its invoices, and is informed by Lynn's common course of conduct
and procedures."

The Plaintiff indicates that Lynn offers students the opportunity
to enroll in one of three divisions -- the Undergraduate Day
Division, the Online Division, and the Graduate Division -- and
that when students enroll in the Undergraduate Day Division, which
costs more per credit than the Online Division, they are
specifically contracting with the university to provide in-person
instruction and access to campus facilities and activities.

The Plaintiff contends that Lynn's promises are set forth in a
variety of university publications and documents.  For example, for
students who enroll in the Undergraduate Day Division, Lynn's
University Policies expressly state that "the University believes
that the classroom experience is the most important part of the
student's educational experience."  Lynn's Academic Catalog also
indicates that "the student's involvement in classroom activities
and discussions is encouraged and expected, therefore, attendance
is not only important, but essential to the learning experience."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Academic Catalog "boasts a rich and
lively on-campus student experience," including social activities,
intramural sports, and a fitness center.  He also asserts that the
tuition and fees reflected in his invoice for the Spring 2020 term
clearly reflect enrollment in the University's Undergraduate Day
Division.  The Plaintiff contends that he and similarly situated
students are entitled to "the prorated portion of tuition and fees
necessary to compensate them for the difference in value between
what they bargained and paid for and what they received."

On Aug. 31, 2020, Lynn moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing
that the Plaintiff fails to allege any contractual provisions
requiring Defendant to provide exclusively in-person education or
requiring a refund of fees.  Lynn further argued that the Plaintiff
fails to allege a material breach and non-speculative damages; that
the Plaintiff ratified any alleged breach; and that impossibility
and/or frustration of purpose bar the Plaintiff's breach of
contract claim.

Lynn also moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim,
arguing that (i) the Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law
because of its contractual relationship with Lynn; and (ii) the
Plaintiff cannot establish that it would be inequitable for Lynn to
retain the cost of tuition and other fees for the Spring 2020
semester.

On Nov. 29, 2020, the Court denied Lynn's initial Motion to Dismiss
because (1) the Plaintiff plausibly alleged the existence of a
valid contract for in-person education, a material breach, and
damages; (2) Lynn failed to conclusively establish that the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was barred by affirmative
defenses of impossibility or frustration of purpose; and (3) Lynn
failed to establish that the Plaintiff affirmatively manifested
intent to approve Lynn's actions with full knowledge of all
material facts.

The Plaintiff then filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint
on Dec. 14, 2020, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons.

The Second Amended Complaint defines the "Class" as follows: All
persons who paid, on behalf of themselves or another, tuition or
fees for in-person education in the Undergraduate Day Division or
Graduate Division at Lynn University for the Spring 2020 term.

On Dec. 28, 2020, Lynn filed both an Answer to the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and the instant Motion to Dismiss and/or
Strike the Class Allegations.  In its Motion, Lynn asks the Court
to dismiss and/or strike the Plaintiff's class action allegations
for four reasons.

First, Lynn asserts that the Plaintiff's contractual claims are
individualized and not "capable of being answered on a class-wide
basis."  Specifically, Lynn argues that because the Plaintiff's
claims are based on students' expectations concerning whether they
would receive in-person education -- and not an explicit written
contractual term promising it -- the Court must engage in an
individualized inquiry for each student to determine if there was a
contract and what its terms were.

Second, Lynn contends that determining damages, if any, in the case
would be an individualized inquiry for each student because damages
would be based on "loss of experience," which is inherently
subjective.  Third, Lynn argues that under Eleventh Circuit
precedent, "unjust enrichment claims are inherently incapable of
being assessed on a class basis."  Finally, Lynn asserts that the
proposed class includes many individuals who lack standing.

Judge Ruiz is not persuaded at this stage in the litigation that
class certification would be "impossible" regardless of any facts
revealed in discovery.  The arguments Lynn advances are more
appropriate for the class certification stage, at which point the
Court can consider them with the benefit of a more developed
factual record.  Thus, without opining on the merits of class
certification or the underlying class allegations, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded the requirements of
standing and Rule 23 as to the class allegations for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.  Accordingly, Judge Ruiz denies the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's Class
Action Allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/rhehtt7u from Leagle.com.


MAD at S.A.D.: Faces Brothers Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAD at S.A.D., LLC.
The case is captioned as Michael Brothers, et al., v. MAD at
S.A.D., LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-60542-RS (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2020).

The case arises from fraud-related issues and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Rodney Smith.

Mad At S.A.D. LLC is located in Sarasota, Florida and is part of
the coffee & tea manufacturing industry. Defendant MAD at S.A.D.,
LLC is doing business as: Kombucha 221 B.C.[BN]

Plaintiffs Michael Brothers, Jamie King Colton, and Jamiel Brown,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Scott A Bursor, Esq.
          Stephen Andrew Beck, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  sbeck@bursor.com

MAM USA: Court Tosses Claims for Injunctive Relief in Freeman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINIQUE FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAM USA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01834 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Edmond E.
Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
MAM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims.

In an effort to do what parents do -- provide comfort and care to
their children -- Freeman bought "orthodontic" pacifiers made by
child-products company MAM.  Based on MAM's representations,
Freeman believed that the pacifiers would benefit her son's dental
and oral health.  Recently, however, Freeman learned that many
studies allegedly show that extended pacifier use, including
"orthodontic" pacifier use, is harmful to children's health.

Ms. Freeman brought the proposed class action against MAM, alleging
that MAM's false advertising of its orthodontic pacifiers --
especially for children over 24 months of age -- violates the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
ILCS 505/1, et seq., the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, 815 ILCS 510/1, et seq., and many other states' consumer
protection laws.  She also brings claims for breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.

Along with the claims on her own behalf, Freeman also seeks
certification of nationwide, multi-state, and Illinois subclasses.

MAM now moves to dismiss the claims under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  It argues that Freeman lacks
standing to sue for injunctive relief, and that she has failed to
allege the fraud necessary to state a claim.

MAM also argues that Freeman cannot bring claims on behalf of
out-of-state class members.  It frames this as a standing argument,
though it is really a challenge to the Court's personal
jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs (which means it is really
a dismissal motion under Civil Rule 12(b)(2)).

Standing for Injunctive Relief

In challenging Freeman's standing to pursue injunctive relief, MAM
argues that Freeman has not adequately alleged a risk of future
harm to her.  It points out that Freeman now knows all about the
allegedly deceptive advertising, so she cannot be harmed by them in
the future.  This is true -- Freeman does not suggest that she
herself is at risk of future harm.  Instead, she counters that
other members of the proposed class remain unaware of MAM's
practices and they are at risk of future harm.  Freeman offers this
proposition: That the risk of future harm to proposed class members
allows her to pursue the claim for injunctive relief.

Judge Chang finds that Freeman does not allege that sort of
widespread false advertising across products or time, instead
specifically targeting the "orthodontic" labelling on MAM's
pacifiers.  Absent the likelihood of future injury, there is no
actual case or controversy between Freeman and MAM when it comes to
injunctive relief.   Freeman has not demonstrated standing to
pursue injunctive relief.  Moreover, the public-policy concerns, no
matter how compelling, cannot trump the Article III standing
requirement.  The claims for injunctive relief are dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction for Out-of-State Class Claims

Moving on from the claims for injunctive relief, Freeman proposes a
nationwide class of Plaintiffs, as well as nationwide, multi-state,
and Illinois subclasses, who have been harmed by MAM's allegedly
false advertising.  MAM argues that Freeman cannot bring claims on
behalf of out-of-state class members, framing this as a purported
problem of Article III standing.

Judge Chang holds that Freeman's Article III standing on the
damages claims is secure: She alleges that she suffered an injury
in fact; the injury is fairly traceable to the allegedly false
advertising; and the Court can redress the injury with money
damages.  For everyone else in the proposed class, she is proposing
to serve as a class representative, not seeking to redress an
injury specific to her -- of course she herself did not pay for the
pacifiers bought by each proposed class member. That is the whole
point of a class action: to represent the interests of class
members, not just the representative's own interests.

If MAM is right about how Article III standing applies to proposed
class actions -- that is, that a plaintiff can only raise claims
under her own State's laws -- then no multi-state or nationwide
class can ever be certified without a representative from each and
every State in the proposed class.  That ban would apply even
against a products-liability class action based on common-law
negligence or strict liability principles, and even if the case
involved applying the same legal principles uniformly throughout
the Nation.

Indeed, when the case reaches the class-certification decisional
stage, the Judge points out it might very well be that MAM will
have solid arguments against certifying nationwide or multi-state
classes, especially if the state laws have different substantive
legal standards.  Adequacy, commonality, and predominance can be
tough questions in deciding whether to certify a multi-state class.
So close scrutiny is warranted.  But that is a question to be
answered after discovery on the propriety of class certification --
not right out of the box by an overbroad application of Article III
standing to proposed class actions.  MAM's request to dismiss the
out-of-state claims is denied.

Adequacy of the Claims

MAM next argues that the Complaint fails to state a valid claim.

Judge Chang holds that (i) Freeman has alleged that MAM seeks to
convince consumers to buy its products based on its advertising
campaign around their safety and benefits for children that with
reasonable inferences drawn in Freeman's favor, intent to deceive
is adequately alleged; (ii) given that the products allegedly do
not provide these benefits, Freeman has adequately alleged that she
did not receive the benefit of the bargain when she bought the
pacifiers; (iii) given the limited number of lines of MAM pacifiers
and the shared advertising language, Freeman has provided enough
specificity on what she purchased and what the labels were; and
(iv) the assertion of the claim for breach of warranty does not
preclude the Fraud Act claim.

The Judge also finds that (i) Freeman does not contend that she
seeks any relief under the Act other than injunctive relief, so the
lack of standing (as discussed earlier) dooms any claim under the
Act; (ii) because Freeman has not alleged that her child suffered
adverse health consequences, she has not adequately alleged damages
arising from the breach of warranty; and (iii) Freeman has
adequately pleaded that MAM took and kept her purchase money (to
her obvious detriment), because of course she paid for MAM
pacifiers.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Chang dismissed Freeman's claims for
injunctive relief (under the Fraud Act and the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act) for lack of Article III standing.  But the claims
for money damages under the Fraud Act and other states'
consumer-protection statutes, as well as the claims for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment, all survive the motion to dismiss.

The parties will confer and file a joint initial status report,
setting forth a proposed discovery schedule.  The tracking status
hearing of March 26 is reset to April 9, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., but to
track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not
be called).  Instead, the Court will review the joint status report
and set the discovery schedule based on it.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2j2r3cn8 from
Leagle.com.


MARKET OF CHOICE: King Suit Seeks Assistant Store Managers' OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER KING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKET OF CHOICE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00481-MC (D. Or., March 30, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Oregon Revised Statutes by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated assistant store
managers overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an assistant store
manager from approximately May 2016 to June 2017 and from October
2018 to August 2020.

Market of Choice, Inc. is a grocery chain with its headquarters
located at 2862 Willamette St. Suite B, Eugene, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
         Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
         TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
         936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
         Seattle, WA 8103-8869
         Telephone: (206) 816-6603
         Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
         E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

                  - and –

         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
         Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-3657
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net

MAXGEN ENERGY: Faces Navas Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxgen Energy
Services Corporation. The case is captioned as Sergio Navas vs.
Maxgen Energy Services Corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00295925-CU-OE-GDS (Calif. Super., Sacramento Cty., March
8, 2020)

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

MaxGen Energy Services is a provider of operations and maintenance
services for mission-critical renewable energy infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, is represented by:

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

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Teamsters Sues Over Opioid Epidemic Nuisance
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 404 HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE PLAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-op-45038-DAP (N.D. Ohio,
March 5, 2020) concerns McKinsey's work for Purdue and its owner,
the Sackler family, beginning at least as early as 2004, and in
particular McKinsey's work in the years after the 2007 guilty plea
relating to Purdue's sales and marketing strategy for its opioids.

According to the complaint, the distribution and diversion of
opioids into Ohio created the foreseeable opioid crisis and opioid
public nuisance for which the Plaintiff seeks relief. The Plaintiff
directly and foreseeably sustained all economic damages alleged
herein. Defendants' conduct has exacted a financial burden for
which the Plaintiff seeks relief. These damages have been suffered,
and continue to be suffered directly, by the Plaintiff, the suit
adds.

The Plaintiff also seeks the means to abate the epidemic created by
Defendants' alleged wrongful and/or unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff
has standing to bring an action for the opioid epidemic nuisance
created by Defendants.

The Plaintiff has standing to recover damages incurred as a result
of Defendant McKinsey's actions and omissions. The Plaintiff brings
all claims under the federal RICO statute, added the suit.

Plaintiff Teamsters Local 404 Health Services and Insurance Plan is
a health and welfare benefit fund and is involved in the business
of providing health benefits for covered lives.

The Plaintiff is a multi-employer employee welfare benefit plan,
within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Plaintiff Teamsters Local 404 HSIP paid or incurred costs for
prescription opioid drugs manufactured, marketed, sold, or
distributed by Purdue and other Opioid Marketing Enterprise
Defendants, for purposes other than resale (intended for
consumption by its covered participants, their dependents, and
covered retirees), and incurred costs for treatment related to the
misuse, addiction and/or overdose of opioid drugs during the class
period.

Given its participants' past history of purchases of opioids and
need for medical care resulting from opioid abuse or addiction,
Teamsters Local 404 HSIP anticipates that it will continue to
purchase and/or provide reimbursement for opioids and/or incur
costs for opioid-related treatment in the foreseeable future.

McKinsey had an ongoing relationship with Purdue beginning at least
as early as 2004 and lasting decades. By June 2009 McKinsey was
advising Purdue on precisely the same sales and marketing strategy
and practices for OxyContin that were the subject of the Corporate
Integrity Agreement. McKinsey continued this work after the
expiration of the Corporate Integrity Agreement and at least
through November of 2017.

McKinsey provided advice to Purdue about what Purdue should do,
McKinsey remained with Purdue to assure proper implementation of
McKinsey's strategies to maximize OxyContin sales.

Purdue is the manufacturer of OxyContin, among other opioids.
OxyContin is a Schedule II opioid agonist tablet of pure oxycodone
first approved in 1995 and the product whose launch in 1996 ushered
in the modern opioid epidemic. Purdue initially made it available
in the following strengths: 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg, 60
mg, 80 mg, and 160 mg.

The case is consolidated in RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2804.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          David S. Scalia, Esq.
          TerriAnne Benedatto, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180

               - and -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          David R. Cheverie, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA &
          CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311

               - and -

          Thomas Sobol, Esq.
          Lauren Barnes, Esq.
          Kristen Johnson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
          SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700

MDL 2848: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Richins Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RICHINS, an individual and JAN MARIE RICHINS, an individual
v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No.
2:21-cv-01086-HBB (March 5, 2021) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated patients alleging that
Merck failed to exercise reasonable care in the design,
formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality
control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of
Zostavax because Merck knew, or should have known, that its product
caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for
administration to consumers.

The Plaintiffs contend that Merck failed to exercise due care in
the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or
their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of
serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from
its use.

Merck continued to manufacture and market its product despite the
knowledge, whether direct or ascertained with reasonable care, that
Zostavax posed a serious risk of bodily harm to consumers. This is
especially true given its tenuous efficacy, the Plaintiff adds.

Merck designed, manufactured, licensed, labeled, tested,
distributed, marketed and sold the Zostavax vaccine.

Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the
intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the
varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that
causes chickenpox.

Plaintiff Richins was inoculated with the Defendants' Zostavax
vaccine for routine health maintenance and for its intended
purpose: the prevention of shingles (herpes zoster). After
receiving the Defendants' Zostavax vaccine, the Plaintiff suffered
dermatitis and herpes zoster. As a result of these symptoms, Mr.
Richins was seen and treated by medical providers in Arizona and is
still under their care.

The case is consolidated in MDL NO. 2848 RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER
VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.,
          Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
          SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
          155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 266-5670
          Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
          E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com

MEILING ZOU: Plaintiffs Object Debtor's Dischargeability of Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEILING ZOU, Debtor, GUANGLEI JIAO, NAN YU, RUIJI ZHAI, YANJUN LI,
and TROY LAW PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEILING ZOU a/k/a Denise Zou,
Defendant, Case No. 1-21-01036-jmm (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) is a
class action that objects the Debtor's dischargeability of debts
with regards to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated restaurant employees overtime wages and spread
of hours premium for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant at Shang Shang Qian
restaurant located at 36-34 Union Street, Flushing, New York at any
time between 2016 and 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         John Troy, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
         E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

METICULOUS CLEANING: Underpays Housekeepers, Amaya Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METICULOUS CLEANING SERVICES INC. and
ZERLINDA RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05687 (D.N.J.,
March 18, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking
equitable and legal relief for its alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a housekeeper from
in or around January 2017 until on or around February 4, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she and other similarly situated housekeepers were not
properly compensated for all hours they worked despite routinely
working a total of between approximately 47 and 55 hours per week
at the Work Locations. Instead, the Defendants compensated them at
a fixed hourly rate for all Work Locations Hours they worked,
including those over 40 per week, the Plaintiff adds.

Specifically, the Defendant required her and other similarly
situated housekeepers to arrive one hour earlier before their
scheduled shift to prepare for their cleaning supplies before
traveling to their first Work Location of the day that is more or
less 4 hours travel time each day. Allegedly, the Defendant did not
compensate them for the time they spent collecting cleaning
supplies at the beginning of the day, and returning the cleaning
supplies at the end of the day. Moreover, the Defendants did not
provide them daily meal or rest breaks, and they were required to
eat meals during shifts while traveling from one Work Location to
the next.

As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
housekeepers were denied by the Defendants of all their lawfully
earned wages, including overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek.

Meticulous Cleaning Services Inc. provides cleaning services to
various residential and commercial locations throughout New Jersey.
Zerlina Rodriguez was, and still is, an officer, director,
shareholder and/or person in control of Meticulous Cleaning who
exercises significant control over the company's operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Conte Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SABATO CONTE, MICHAEL MURPHY, YAMIRA WONG, ANTHONY LARDO, and
MATTHEW IAROCCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02516 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 23, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages for
delayed payments of overtime and other wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as maintainer.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation responsible for public transportation in the New York
City metropolitan area of the U.S. state of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

          Joshua Beldner, Esq.
          Eric S. Tilton, Esq.
          TILTON BELDNER, LLP
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 262-3602
          Facsimile: (516) 324-2170
          E-mail: jbeldner@tiltonbeldner.com
                  etilton@tiltonbeldner.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF LONG BEACH, a
municipal corporation; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political
subdivision; CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
BERKELEY, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a port
district of the State of Oregon; BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MONSANTO
COMPANY; SOLUTIA INC.; and PHARMACIA LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on April 22, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Settlement Class;

   2. preliminary approving Class Action Settlement;

   3. approving Notice Plan;

   4. appointing Class Action Settlement Administrator; and

   5. appointing Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants Monsanto and Pharmacia have reached a
proposed nationwide class action settlement to resolve allegations
that the Defendant's design, manufacture, sale, promotion, and
supply of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
resulted in the contamination of the Plaintiffs' stormwater and
other resources, necessitating treatment and/or remediation to
remove PCBs. The Defendant has agreed to pay as a net class benefit
up to $550 million to be distributed to 2,528 class members across
the United States. The Defendant also has agreed to separately pay
class counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses, and class
administration and notice costs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PO3itW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Fiske, Esq.
          Scott Summy, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 265
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 251-7424
          E-mail: SSummy@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
          cburkepickrel@baronbudd.com
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave, #1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605

MOUNT VERNON, NY: Montero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK; and DEBORAH REYNOLDS,
in her official capacity as Comptroller for the City of Mount
Vernon, New York, Case No. 7:21-cv-01924 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021)
is class action against the Defendants for unpaid and late-paid
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

The Defendants allegedly have regularly required Plaintiff and
other similarly situated non-exempt employees to work more than 40
hours per week but -- pursuant to a common unlawful pattern,
practice, and/or policy -- has not paid them the overtime
compensation that they earned on their regular pay day for such
workweeks, or at all. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
requiring the Defendants to comply with the law, as well as an
award of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs, and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Mount Vernon, New York. The
Plaintiff has been employed full-time by Defendant City as a
non-exempt hourly "employee" as defined by Section 3(e)(1) of the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 203(e)(1). He has been employed by the
Defendant City as a Sewer Maintainer in the Department of Public
Works, the Plaintiff says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
          BLITMAN & KING LLP
          Franklin Center, Suite 300
          443 North Franklin Street
          Syracuse, NY 13204
          Telephone: (315) 422-7111
          Facsimile: (315) 471-2623
          E-mail: bjlaclair@bklawyers.com

NAPW INC: Debora Bayne Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORA BAYNE, and all
other persons similarly situated, v. NAPW, INC. d/b/a National
Association of Professional NOTICE OF MOTION Women and d/b/a
International Association of Women, and PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY
NETWORK, INC. d/b/a National Association of Professional Women and
d/b/a International Association of Women, Case No.
1:18-cv-03591-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23;

   2. authorizing that notice of this class action be published to

      members of the Class to the Declaration of Jack Newhouse;
and

   3. directing the Defendants to produce a full and complete class

      list of all members of the certified class with names and
      last known addresses for each member of the class within 30
      days from the date of the Court's Order.

Napw Inc. was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes membership organizations engaged in civic, social, or
fraternal activities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 18,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fxj4nI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Opt-in Plaintiffs, and
Putative Class, are:

          Jack Newhouse, Esq.
          Michele Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com

NEEDLEPAINT LLC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NeedlePaint LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. NeedlePaint LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01678 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 29, 2021).

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

NeedlePaint -- https://www.needlepaint.com/ -- offers a wide
selection of needlepoint kits, belts, pillows, collars and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


NEO MOBILE: Improperly Pay Technicians' Wages, Nera Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR NERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEO MOBILE INC. (D/B/A NEO MOBILE) and
GRUBERT ESPINOZA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01713 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread
of hours compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all hours
worked, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to
properly pay wages on a timely manner.

Mr. Nera was employed as a technician, cell phone vendor and
deliverer of cell phones and parts at the Neo Mobile cell phone and
computer repair business located at 95-43 Roosevelt Ave., Jackson
Heights, New York from approximately April 2019 until on or about
January 2021.

Neo Mobile Inc. is an owner and operator of a cell phone and
computer repair business under the name Neo Mobile, located at
95-43 Roosevelt Ave., Jackson Heights, New York. [BN]

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

NEW EXPRESS: Sanchez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW EXPRESS HAND CAR WASH INC. d/b/a EXPRESS HAND CAR
WASH, and JUAN PABLO CUEVAS, as an individual, Case No.
1:21-cv-01926 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' egregious violations of the State and Federal
wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment by the
Defendants at New Express Hand Car Wash Inc.

Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally
prescribed minimum wage for all his hours worked from January 2015
through March 2020, a blatant violation of the minimum wage
provisions contained within the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Laws.

Moreover, although the Plaintiff worked approximately 77 hours or
more hours per week from January 2015 until March 2020, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for all his hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit says.

As a result of the alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00.
The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal, and equitable remedies that this Court deems
appropriate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
           80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
           Kew Gardens, NY 11415
           Telephone (718) 263-9591

NEW YORK STATE: Perry Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHEA PERRY, JEAN SEME individually on their own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated former and current employees v. NEW
YORK STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, KIM SUMBLER, EXEC, DIR., NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE and ANTHONY GIARDINA, Case No.
1:21-cv-01967 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021) is a class action seeking
remedy violations of the minimum wage-and-hour provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by the
Defendants who enacted and enforced policies and practices of
willful and wrongful withholding or non-payment of employees'
earned minimum wages for all hours worked in a 40 hour work week
and applicable overtime wages for any hours worked past 40 hours in
a work week.

The collective Plaintiffs are similarly situated inspectors or at
will employees of NYSAC who were not afforded the benefits of the
NYS Civil Service Law (NYS CSL) or public or state employee union
membership.

New York State Athletic Commission or NYSAC, also known as the New
York Athletic Commission, is a division of the New York State
Department of State which regulates all contests and
exhibitions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Ghim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAM GHIM
          244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1434
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (917) 549-4708
          E-mail: SGHIMESQ@GMAIL.COM

NEXTCURE INC: Bid to Dismiss Zhou Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
NextCure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
putative stockholder class action entitled, Ye Zhou v. NextCure,
Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772 (S.D.N.Y.). is pending.

On September 21, 2020, the putative stockholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On February 26, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint that asserts claims against the company, certain
of its officers and members of its board of directors, and the
underwriters in the company's May 2019 initial public offering and
November 2019 underwritten secondary public offering.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to statements made regarding
our lead product candidate, NC318, and the FIND-IO platform.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our securities between May 8, 2019 and July
14, 2020.

Defendants intend to move to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint and discovery is stayed pending resolution of that
motion.

NextCure, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed
to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class immunomedicines
to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases by restoring
normal immune function. The company is based in Beltsville,
Maryland.

NGL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Late Payments, PRSA Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES L. PRICE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, successor trustee Gary R.
Underwood, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NGL ENERGY PARTNERS LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00135-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla., March 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to automatically pay
interest on all late payments owed to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated oil-and-gas property interest owners. The
Defendant only pays statutory interest to owners who demand it,
even though the statute contains no such demand requirement.

NGL Energy Partners LP is an energy firm, with its principal place
of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
         Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
         BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
         431 W. Main Street, Suite D
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Telephone: (405) 698-2770
         E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                 ryan@bradwil.com

                - and –

         James U. White, Jr., Esq.
         WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C.
         P.O. Box 54783
         Oklahoma City, OK 73154
         Telephone: (405) 842-7545
         E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com

NOKIA CORP: Still Defends Suit Over Alcatel-Lucent Integration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit related to the company's false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning its progress of integration of
Alcatel-Lucent S.A.

A litigation was filed on April 19, 2019, against the Group and
certain executives in the United States relating to allegations of
the Group making false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning its progress of integration of Alcatel-Lucent, including
compliance practices identified during the integration process and
disclosed in the Group's Annual Report on Form 20-F filed on March
21, 2019.

The complaint was subsequently amended to include allegations of
the Group making false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the Group's readiness for the transition to fifth
generation wireless technology.

Nokia Corporation has three operating segments: Devices & Services;
NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services is
responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio of
mobile products, as well as designing and developing services,
including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of digital
map information and related location-based content and services for
mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation systems,
Internet-based mapping applications, and government and business
solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and fixed network
infrastructure, communications and networks service platforms, as
well as professional services and business solutions, to operators
and service providers. In August 2012, the Company sold a portfolio
consisting of over 500 patents and patent applications worldwide to
Vringo Inc.

NORDSON CORP: Settlement Reached in Ortiz Suit
----------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit initiated by a former employee named Ortiz
have agreed to settle the dispute, subject to the execution of a
written settlement agreement and court approval.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Following mediation in June 2020, the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit, subject to the execution of a written settlement agreement
and court approval.

Nordson said, "If the settlement agreement is approved, the class
action lawsuit will be resolved. Management believes, based on
currently available information, that the ultimate outcome of the
proceeding described above will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations."

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

Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.

NORTH GREENVILLE: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Greenville
University. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. North
Greenville University, Case No. 1:21-cv-02695 (S.D.N.Y., March 29,
2021).

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

North Greenville University -- https://ngu.edu/ -- is private
Baptist university in Tigerville, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHEAST COMMUNITY: Underpays Blended Case Managers, Carroll Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAYSON CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01288 (E.D. Penn., March 17,
2021) brings this complaint as a class/collective action seeking
all available remedies for the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act  and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a Blended Case
Manager, asserts that despite regularly working over 40 hours per
week and routinely working through lunch time, the Defendant failed
to compensate him and other similarly situated Blended Case
Managers for all hours they worked, including overtime compensation
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
they worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant
allegedly failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to
Blended Case Managers hours worked to determine their lawful wages,
actual hours worked, and other conditions of employment as required
by law.

Northeast Community Center For Behavioral Health provides
behavioral health services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          Jessica Brown, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 656-3600
          Fax: (215) 567-2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


NORTHSIDE ISD: W.D. Texas Narrows Claims in Lartigue IDEA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE AND LINDA LARTIGUE, as parents and next friends
of K.L., Plaintiffs v. NORTHSIDE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. SA-19-CV-0393-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason
Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division, grants in part and denies in part the
District's Motion to Dismiss.

The action was initiated as a putative class action brought by
parents of students with "a hearing impairment disability" who
attended school in the District.  The Plaintiffs alleged N.I.S.D.
violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"),
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the United States and Texas Constitutions, and Chapter 121 of
the Texas Human Resources Code.  They claimed the District failed
to provide "deaf and hearing services" to Plaintiffs and students
who may be members of their proposed class.

Plaintiffs Jose and Linda Lartigue moved to sever their case and
opt-out of the class action because K.L. no longer attended school
in the District.  However, after all other Plaintiffs reached a
settlement with N.I.S.D. and dismissed their cases, the Court
permitted Jose and Linda Lartigue ("Plaintiffs") to file an amended
complaint on behalf of their child. Cf.  In their second amended
complaint, the operative pleading, the Plaintiffs bring claims
under Title II of the ADA; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

According to the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, K.L., who is
deaf and hearing impaired, received special education services
while attending the Science & Engineering Academy in the N.I.S.D.
K.L.'s Individualized Educational Plan ("IEP") included
sign-language interpreting services; auditory impaired ("AI")
counseling services for 45 minutes a month to address self-advocacy
and coping abilities; specialized transportation services; a
transition plan to set specific post-high school goals; and
consultative itinerant support from an AI certified teacher to help
coordinate all the above. K.L. never received such services.

In summary, the Plaintiffs allege that N.I.S.D. failed to provide
the following to K.L.: (1) two interpreters at all times; (2)
closed captioning for films and educational materials in class; (3)
specialized consultative itinerant services to coordinate academic
and non-academic needs; (4) private counseling; and (5) CART
services.  And N.I.S.D. failed to respond to K.L.'s cognitive
fatigue, her feelings of isolation, and her inability to
communicate with her peers.  As a result of N.I.S.D.'s indifference
to her needs; her cognitive fatigue, loneliness, and social
isolation; and the academic rigors of the Academy, K.L. began
having panic attacks and ultimately left school.

Before the Court is District's Motion to Dismiss.

As for equal protection, in their second amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs' allege that K.L. "was not provided equal treatment to
her non-disabled peers because of her disabilities."  Their
response clarifies that K.L. "was denied access to public
educational services provided her nonhearing impaired peers,"
including access to UIL competitions and audio-visual materials.
She alleges she was denied access to competitions because N.I.S.D.
did not provide CARTS; she was denied access to audio-visual
materials because N.I.S.D. did not provide closed captioning; and
she was denied "many other things."

Judge Pulliam finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that students
who watch in-class audio-visual materials or compete in debate
competitions are similarly situated to K.L. and have not alleged
sufficient facts for him to conclude that the hearing students are
appropriate comparators.  Further, he says the Plaintiffs do not
allege facts that show there was no rational basis for the
difference in treatment between K.L. and the hearing students.

With respect to due process, the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint also shows that K.L. made four presentations to the
School Board requesting closed-captioning of audio-visual
materials.  But they only allege that K.L. did not receive the
response she desired, the Judge finds.  The pleading makes clear
the Board did not deny her request to be heard. And there are no
allegations from which the Court could infer that the Board did not
exercise independent judgment or that it engaged in other conduct
that impinged K.L.'s due process rights.

The Plaintiffs also allege K.L. was denied her property right in a
FAPE secured by the IDEA.  The IDEA provides procedural safeguards
that allow the parents an opportunity to challenge the
establishment or implementation of an IEP in an "impartial due
process hearing which will be conducted by the State educational
agency as determined by State law."  In Texas, the hearing is
conducted before the Texas Education Agency ("TEA").

Judge Pulliam finds that the Plaintiffs' pleading shows that K.L.
requested a special education due process hearing with the TEA, a
hearing was convened, and K.L. was represented by counsel.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint does not
challenge the decision of the hearing officer.  Thus, review of the
hearing officer's decision is not before the Court.

With respect to their Monell claims, Judge Pulliam opines that the
Plaintiffs have not shown that any alleged injury occurred as a
result of an unconstitutional policy or custom of N.I.S.D.  They do
not point to a specific policy nor do her allegations contain facts
that demonstrate any persistent, widespread practices or a pattern
of constitutional violations by the School Board or the Academy.
Nothing also in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint evinces a
failure to act or wanton disregard by the Academy or the District
to K.L.'s panic attacks.  Thus, their pleading alleges no plausible
entitlement to relief.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support
each of the elements required to state a constitutional or Monell
claim brought under Section 1983.  Accordingly, the Judge dismisses
these claims.

Finally, the Plaintiffs bring their ADA claim as a failure to
accommodate claim and their Section 504 claim as a hostile
educational environment claim.  It is undisputed that K.L. is an
individual with a qualifying disability and that her disability and
its consequential limitations were known by N.I.S.D. Plaintiffs
aver that K.L. required audio-video content to be captioned in
order to meaningfully access it; K.L. needed CARTS in order to
participate in UIL competitions; and that the District refused to
provide these accommodations.  These allegations, according to
Judge Pulliam, are sufficient to establish a failure to accommodate
claim.

However, while the Plaintiffs allege facts that demonstrate
physical and emotional responses to stress, they do not connect
K.L.'s panic attacks to factual allegations that demonstrate a
hostile educational environment.  Accordingly, the Judge dismisses
their hostile educational environment claim.

The Plaintiffs' response to the motion to dismiss requests leave to
amend.  The Judge opines that the Plaintiffs have had two previous
opportunities to cure the pleading deficiencies identified by
N.I.S.D., which included challenges to the sufficiency their
claims.   Therefore, he denies their request for leave to amend.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pulliam grants in part and denies
in part the Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' failure to
accommodate claim will proceed.  All other claims are dismissed
with prejudice.

The case is set for status conference via Zoom at 11:30 a.m. on
April 27, 2021.  The counsel who have not received the Zoom link
within 48 hours of the scheduled conference should contact Magda
Muzza, the Courtroom Deputy. Ms. Muzza can be reached at (210)
244-5021 or Magda_Muzza@txwd.uscourts.gov.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/24mujz5v from
Leagle.com.


NORTHSTAR CEMETERY: Underpays Employees, Schornik Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCHORNIK, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR CEMETERY SERVICES OF OHIO, LLC c/o Statutory
Agent CT Corporation System, NORTHSTAR CEMETERY SERVICES OF OHIO,
LLC dba SUNSET FUNERAL, CREMATION SERVICES & CEMETERY, and SUNSET
FUNERAL, CREMATION SERVICES & CEMETERY, and NORTHSTAR MEMORIAL
GROUP, LLC, and ROBYN BREND, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00627
(N.D. Ohio, March 19, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34(a), and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2010 until he
retired on or about March 31, 2019. His employment duties include
facilitating the sale and/or distribution of the Defendants' good
and services related to the funeral industry.

The Plaintiff contends that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay him and other
similarly situated employees the minimum hourly wage rate, and
overtime wage at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. Instead, the Defendants compensated them a range of
percentages of the purchase prices of the Defendants' goods and
services for which the employees facilitated the sale and/or
distribution in amounts equal to or less than one-half the
compensation the Defendants paid in a month or other representative
period. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees a bona fide commission rate in a month
or other representative period in amounts greater than one-half the
compensation paid to them, the Plaintiff adds.

The Corporate Defendants operate and maintain a funeral home,
crematorium, and cemetery in North Olmsted, Ohio. Robyn Brend
serves as the Director of Compensation, Benefits and Payroll for
the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Horwitz, Esq.
          THOMAS M. HORWITZ CO., LPA
          1991 Crocker Road, Suite 600
          Westlake, OH 44145
          Tel: (440) 892-3331
          Fax: (440) 848-8501
          E-mail: tmh@horwitzlpa.com

                - and –

          John C. Grecol, Esq.
          GRECOL LAW LLC
          23823 Lorain Road, Suite 270
          North Olmsted, OH 44070
          Tel: (440) 779-6636
          Fax: (440) 756-3046
          E-mail: jgrecol@grecollaw.com


NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeals Approval of Settlement in NJCHF Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the
court's order approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit
initiated by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, is still
pending.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated.

Defendants in the case included  NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation (NMFC) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"),
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual
directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company
and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating
agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not
invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the
lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013, the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class
and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.


One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class.  

After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  

Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing.  

On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order
approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019 and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019.  

The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the objector
replied on October 18, 2019. Oral argument was held on February 19,
2020.  

Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company
believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."

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

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.

OLAM SPICES: Prelim. Hearing on Beltran Settlement Set for April 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLAM SPICES AND
VEGETABLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-NONE-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California sets the hearing for oral
argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
class action and collective action settlement for April 7, 2021.

On April 13, 2020, a motion for preliminary approval of a class
action and collective action settlement was filed by Plaintiffs
Thomas Beltran, Mario Martinez, Maria Claudia Obeso Cota, Juan
Rivera, Mariana Ramirez, and Alexander Solorio.  On June 2, 2020, a
findings and recommendations was filed finding, that viewing the
agreement in its entirety, there were numerous deficiencies in the
motion that precluded a finding that the settlement is fair and
reasonable.  On June 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed objections to
the findings and recommendations.

On Dec. 30, 2020, the district judge issued an order finding that
some of the issues identified in the findings and recommendations
had been corrected in the objections, and directed the filing of
supplemental briefing and documentation.  On Jan. 28, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing.  On March 9, 2021, the
district judge referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Boone
for further consideration in light of the supplemental briefing
filed.

Magistrate Judge Boone sets the hearing for oral argument on the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action and
collective action settlement for April 7, 2021.  At the hearing,
the parties will be prepared to discuss the following issues: (i)
the collective action opt-in procedure, (ii) the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and (iii) appointment of the
class counsel.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Rule 23 provides that notice of the
settlement should be provided to the class "if giving notice is
justified by the parties' showing that the court will likely be
able to" approve the settlement.  He finds that it is likely that
final approval of the collective action settlement will be denied
given the procedure set forth in the settlement agreement.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the motion for preliminary
approval does not adequately address the issue of notice.
Accordingly, he orders that the Plaintiffs will be prepared to
address why a single mailed notice is the best practicable in the
circumstance and whether there are other manners, such as
notification by email or otherwise, that could be used to provide
notice to those putative class members that will not be reached by
notice through the mail.

Finally, counsel Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Goanna Gosh of
Lawyers for Justice, PC; counsel Joseph Lavi and Vincent Granberry
of Lavi and Ebrahimian L.L.P; and counsel Sahag Majarian, II of Law
Offices of Sahag Majarian, II seek to be appointed as the class
counsel.  The Magistrate Judge finds the matter to be somewhat
unusual due to the large number of counsel seeking to be appointed
as the class counsel and the Plaintiffs have not addressed why it
is appropriate or necessary to appoint six attorneys at three
different firms to represent the class in the matter, especially
given that review of the record, based on the Court's experience in
adjudicating similar cases, indicates that this is a relatively
straight forward class and collective action.

Accordingly, the oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of a class action and collective action
settlement is set for April 7, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9.
The parties may file supplemental briefing regarding the issues
identified in the Order by noon on April 5, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sy3txcwh from Leagle.com.


ONDELLO INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Kiler Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. ONDELLO, INC. d/b/a HelloMD, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01226-WFK-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021) alleges that
the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

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

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

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

Ondello provides to the public a website known as HelloMD.com which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to get medical cannabis doctor consultations
and obtain a medical marijuana card, make purchases, pay online,
and read reviews, among other features.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Hodges Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DESMOND HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00041-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 18, 2021) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Massachusetts General Laws.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from December 2019 to
February 2020 as a crew member to perform on-site construction work
on utility and telecommunications equipment serviced by the
Defendant in Massachusetts and other states.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified him and other
similarly situated crew members as non-exempt employees and paid
them on an hourly basis. Accordingly, the Defendant required them
to work over 40 hours in most weeks, but they were not compensated
for the time they spent meeting with the foreman and loading and
cleaning their work vehicles, followed by driving or riding in the
vehicle to the job sites at which they performed construction work
because in most days, their foreman failed to report in the
Defendant's timekeeping system those time they performed pre-shift
duties. As a result, the Plaintiff and crew members were not paid
for all hours they worked, including overtime compensation at one
and one-half times their regular rate for hours they worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, the suit says.

Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. provides infrastructure
construction and support services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Tel: (973) 898-0404
          E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com

                - and –

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (201) 630-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


PACIFICORP: James Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp 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 company continues to defend
a putative class action suit entitled, Jeanyne James et. al. vs.
PacifiCorp, Case No. 20cv33885.

On September 30, 2020, a putative class action complaint against
PacifiCorp was filed, captioned Jeanyne James et. al. vs.
PacifiCorp, Case No. 20cv33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County,
Oregon.

The complaint was filed on behalf of certain named Oregon residents
and businesses and all Oregon citizens and entities whose real or
personal property was harmed by wildfires in Oregon beginning on or
after September 7, 2020.

The complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed to the
Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and that
PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things. The
complaint was amended November 2, 2020 to seek the following
damages: (i) damages for real and personal property and other
economic losses in excess of $600 million; (ii) double the amount
of property and economic damages based on alleged gross negligence;
(iii) treble damages for specific costs associated with loss of
timber, trees and shrubbery; (iv) double the damages for the costs
of litigation and reforestation; and (v) prejudgment interest.

The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right
to amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive damages. Other
individual lawsuits alleging similar claims have been filed in
Oregon related to the 2020 wildfires.

Investigations as to the cause and origin of the wildfires are
ongoing.

Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and
its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically
integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers,
including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers
in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington,
Idaho and California.

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Interlocutory Appeal in Plymouth Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended January 23, 2021, that the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals denied defendants' Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory appeal in Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

The report and recommendation, among other things, recommends the
dismissal of all claims against individual defendants Ann B.
Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz. On September 10,
2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation.

On September 28, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class, appoint class representatives and
appoint class counsel.

On October 12, 2020, Patterson and the remaining individual
defendant, Mr. Anderson, filed a Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the defendants sought
clarification of the standard for rebutting the Basic presumption
of class-wide reliance in securities class actions.

On October 13, 2020, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion to
stay the underlying proceeding with the District Court pending the
possibility of interlocutory appeal.

On November 9, 2020, the District Court denied defendants' motion
to stay and on November 12, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied defendants' Rule 23(f) petition.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act § 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records
relating to the issues raised in the securities class action
complaint and certain antitrust litigation."

Patterson Companies Inc. distributes dental products, veterinary
supplies for companion pets, and rehabilitation supplies. The
Company sells and markets to dental clinics and laboratories,
veterinarians, and to the physical and occupational therapy
markets. The company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.

PBF HOLDING: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 27
----------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in the case, Arnold
Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is scheduled
to commence on July 27, 2021.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy, and its
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the
manager of our Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef. On March 18, 2019, the class
certification hearing was held and the court took the matter under
submission. On April 1, 2019, the court issued an order denying
class certification.

On April 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for
Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22,
2019, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion.

The filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The
plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October 15,
2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and
named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.

On February 5, 2021, the company's motion for Limited Extension of
Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint were heard by the court.

On February 9, 2021, the court issued an order taking both motions
under submission pending additional discovery and briefing related
to plaintiff Youssef and whether a new class representative should
be substituted.

The Court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert disclosure
deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion hearing cut-off,
and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the court's decision
as to whether the case can proceed with a new class representative
and whether defendants will be permitted to conduct additional soil
vapor sampling in the ground subclass area.

PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

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

PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.

PENN POWER: Underpays Maintenance Engineers, Reith Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG REITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENN POWER GROUP, LLC and PENN DETROIT
DIESEL ALLISON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00443 (W.D.N.Y.,
March 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and Class members proper overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Reith worked for the Defendants as a maintenance engineer from
September 2011 to September 2020.

Penn Power Group, LLC is an electronic equipment repair services
company, with its primary office and place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Penn Detroit Diesel Allison, LLC is a manufacturer of internal
combustion engines, with its primary office and place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Rafael O. Gomez, Esq.
         GOMEZ LAW, LLC
         2746 Delaware Avenue
         The Eberhardt Mansion
         Buffalo, NY 14217
         Telephone: (716) 324-5554
         E-mail: rgomez@gomez.law

PENNSYLVANIA: Objections to Weeks' Petition for Review Sustained
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jasmine Weeks, Arnell Howard, Patricia Shallick,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners v. Department of Human Services of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Respondent, Case No. 409 M.D. 2019 (Pa. Cmmw.), the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sustains the Respondent's
preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer requesting the
dismissal of the Petitioners' amended petition for review.

Jasmine Weeks, Arnell Howard, and Patricia Shallick, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, have filed a class
action to have Act of June 28, 2019, P.L. 43, No. 2019-12 (Act 12)
declared unconstitutional and its enforcement enjoined.  Act 12
eliminated the General Assistance cash benefit program administered
by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services but continued the
General Assistance medical assistance program.  It also enacted
several amendments related to the funding of the General Assistance
medical assistance program.

On June 28, 2019, House Bill 33, Printer's Number 2182, was signed
into law as Act 12.  Promptly thereafter, the Department notified
all persons enrolled in General Assistance that their last monthly
cash benefit would be disbursed on July 31, 2019.  The affected
persons had received between $174 and $215 per month, depending on
their county of residence.

On July 22, 2019, the Petitioners filed a petition for review in
the Court's original jurisdiction on behalf of themselves and the
11,844 Pennsylvanians receiving General Assistance cash benefits as
of July 31, 2019.  The petition for review sought (1) a declaratory
judgment that Act 12 violated Article III, Sections 1 and 3 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution and (2) a permanent injunction against
the enforcement of those provisions of Act 12 that eliminated the
General Assistance cash benefit program. Simultaneously,
Petitioners filed an application for a preliminary injunction to
enjoin the Department's enforcement of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act
12, pending disposition of the merits of the petition for review.

On Aug. 1, 2019, the Court denied the Petitioners' application for
a preliminary injunction for the stated reason that they failed to
show either a clear right to relief or immediate and irreparable
harm.  The Petitioners appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the
Court's denial of a preliminary injunction.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Petitioners filed an
amended petition for review.  This pleading repeated the same
constitutional challenges presented in the original petition for
review, but it updated and expanded the factual allegations.  The
amended petition avers that House Bill 33 was introduced on Jan. 4,
2019.

House Bill 33 revised the definition of "General Assistance" in the
Human Services Code, which referred to the cash benefit and the
medical assistance programs.  It specified that the eligibility
criteria for General Assistance would apply only to the General
Assistance-related medical assistance program.  It removed the
receipt of General Assistance cash benefits from the list of ways a
person can be determined to be "medically needy."

Following House consideration of House Bill 33, the legislation was
amended.  The amendments expanded the Medicaid nursing facility
incentive payments for fiscal year 2019-2020; revised definitions
for the Statewide Quality Care Assessment to effect a statewide tax
on hospitals; and reauthorized the municipal hospital assessment
for cities of the first class.

The Petitioners contend that Act 12 violated the "single-subject
rule" and the "original purpose rule" in the Pennsylvania
Constitution and, thus, is void and unenforceable.

On May 11, 2020, the Department filed new preliminary objections in
the nature of a demurrer to the amended petition, contending that
it does not state a claim under Article III, Sections 1 or 3 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.  The preliminary objections raise three
issues: (1) Act 12 did not violate the "single-subject" requirement
in Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) Act
12 did not violate the "original purpose" requirement in Article
III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and (3) the
petition, if granted, would impermissibly intrude upon the
legislative function.  The Department asks the Court to sustain its
preliminary objections and dismiss the amended petition in its
entirety.

For the Court to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear
with certainty that the law will permit no recovery.  Statutes are
strongly presumed to be constitutional, including the manner in
which they were passed.  Stated otherwise, a statute will be held
constitutional "unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates
the Constitution."  All doubts are resolved in favor of the
statute's constitutionality.  In reviewing preliminary objections,
the Court assumes that all facts pled and all reasonable inferences
therefrom are true.  This assumption does not extend to legal
conclusions asserted in the pleading.

The Commonwealth Court addresses the Department's preliminary
objections seriately.

Article III, Section 3 -- Single-subject Rule

The Petitioners assert that Act 12 covers "disparate subjects" that
lack a "unifying scheme."  The Department demurs.  It contends that
Petitioners offer a myopic construction of Act 12 and an overly
restrictive reading of the Constitution.

The Commonwealth Court opines and as the Supreme Court has stated,
the diverse provisions in Act 12 "as a whole" pertain to the
provision of "basic necessities of life to certain low-income
individuals."  The form and nature of the assistance varies, but
the topic is "sufficiently narrow to fit within the single-subject
rubri."  The Court rejects the Petitioners' contention that because
some of the provisions raise revenue for this assistance, Act 12
violates Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
She sustains the Department's preliminary objection to Count I of
the amended petition.

Article III, Section 1 -- Original Purpose

Count II of the Petitioners' amended petition asserts a claim under
Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which
states as follows: "No law will be passed except by bill, and no
bill will be so altered or amended, on its passage through either
House, as to change its original purpose."  The Department demurs
to Count II, explaining that the original purpose of House Bill 33
was broad enough to encompass the bill's amendments.

The Commonwealth Court that the title of House Bill 33 did not have
to identify the language that would be stricken from the Human
Services Code in order to satisfy Article III, Section 1.  The
Petitioners have cited no authority for their view that deletions
from a statute must be recited in the title of the bill.  The fact
that the legislature could have chosen more precise language or
used meaningful punctuation in the language in the title of House
Bill 33 does not demonstrate deception.

The Court states that the amendments to House Bill 33 did not
change the original purpose of the bill, and its title did not
deceive.  The amended petition for review does not state a claim
under Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and
the Department's preliminary objection to Count II is sustained.

Judge Leavitt, writing for the Commonwealth Court, concludes that
the amended petition for review does not state a claim under
Article III, Section 1 or 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Therefore, she sustains the Department's preliminary objections and
dismisses the amended petition for review.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/66n668c5 from Leagle.com.


PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Settlement Entered in Stein Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Performant Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 2, 2021,
that Shiva Stein and the Company entered into a settlement
agreement under which the Company agreed to pay $100,000 in fees
and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel.

On September 17, 2020, Shiva Stein filed a Verified Stockholder
Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and the members of its board of
directors captioned Shiva Stein v. Performant Financial
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0791-AGB.

In the Action, Plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by allowing uninstructed
shares to be purportedly "cast" as votes "For" a proposal to
approve an amendment to the company's Certificate of Incorporation
authorizing the Board to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio
ranging from 1 share-for-5 shares up to a ratio of 1 share-for-20
shares.

Plaintiff sought to enjoin the declaration of any reverse stock
split pursuant to any amendment to the Certificate effected in
connection with the Reverse Split Proposal.

While the Company and the Board deny completely all of the
allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, on October 19, 2020,
the Company filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
a Form 8-K/A Current Report informing stockholders that following
the filing of the Original 8-K, the Company was informed of an
inconsistency related to broker discretion to vote shares for which
a broker had not received instructions from the beneficial owner
with respect to Proposal No. 3 (regarding the approval of an
amendment of the Company's certificate of incorporation to effect a
reverse stock split of the outstanding shares of its common stock);
that, without informing the Company, some but not all brokers
treated Proposal No. 3 as a "routine" proposal despite the proxy
materials for the Annual Meeting describing Proposal No. 3 as a
"non-routine" proposal; and that, due to this inconsistency, the
Company will not effect a reverse stock split at this time and will
instead submit a new "routine" proposal to its stockholders, at a
later date and subject to a new proxy statement, to amend its
certificate of incorporation to effect a reverse stock split. As a
result of the Amended 8-K, Plaintiff agreed that her claims were
moot and stipulated to dismissal of her claims.

On November 18, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order
providing that Plaintiff's action would be dismissed with prejudice
only as to Plaintiff and the case will be closed.

On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff and the Company entered into a
settlement agreement under which the Company agreed to pay $100,000
in fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel. The Court has not
passed on the amount of fees and expenses.

The description of the order is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the order, which is attached as an exhibit hereto.

Plaintiff's Counsel are Gustavo F. Bruckner of Pomerantz LLP, (212)
661-1100, Christopher J. Kupka of Fields Kupka & Shukurov LLP,
(212) 231-1500, and Brian E. Farnan of Farnan LLP, (302) 777-0300,
and the Company's counsel are Bruce A. Ericson, Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP, (415) 983-1000 and David J. Teklits, Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, (877) 772-6628.

Performant Financial Corporation was founded in 2003. The company's
line of business includes providing management services on a
contract or fee basis. The company is based in  Livermore,
California.

PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Roofers' Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company continues to
defend the consolidated securities class action suit entitled,
Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in
the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff
purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on
the company's shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.

In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above.

On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated the Roofers' Pension
Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs
for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative
class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased
shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on
the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during
the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and (iii) shareholders
who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through
at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan
tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their
shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint
alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control
person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R)
royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate
of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The
court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri® accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The
defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown.

The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the
integration issues regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense
against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing
activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain in the case (the
Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying
liability, and the discovery stage of litigation began in late
2018. Discovery in the class action ended on January 31, 2021.
Defendants expect to file various post-discovery motions including
summary judgment motions.

The company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion
and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who
purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017
inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all
those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2,
2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby;
and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and
held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015
(whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan
tender offer) (the "tender offer class").

Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third
Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class. On
April 30, 2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal.

The District Court has approved the issuance of a notice of the
pendency of the class action, and the notice has been sent to
shareholders who are eligible to participate in the classes.

Perrigo said, "Unless otherwise noted, each of the lawsuits
discussed in the following sections is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the
same judges hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The allegations
in the complaints relate to events during certain portions of the
2015 through 2017 calendar years, including the period of the Mylan
tender offer. All but one of these lawsuits allege violations of
federal securities laws, but none are class actions. One lawsuit
(Highfields) alleges only state law claims. Discovery in all these
cases, except Highfields, is underway and currently scheduled to
end in early September 2021. We intend to defend all these lawsuits
vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company continues to
defend putative class action suits related to overarching
conspiracy.

The same three putative classes, including (a) direct purchasers,
(b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers, have filed two sets of
class action complaints alleging that Perrigo and other
manufacturers (and some individuals) entered into an "overarching
conspiracy" that involved allocating customers, rigging bids and
raising, maintaining, and fixing prices for various products.

Each class brings claims for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act as well as several state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes.

Filed in June 2018, and later amended in December 2018 (with
respect to direct purchasers) and April 2019 (with respect to end
payors and indirect resellers), the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions include allegations against Perrigo and
approximately 27 other manufacturers involving 135 drugs with
allegations dating back to March 2011.

The allegations against Perrigo concern only two formulations
(cream and ointment) of one of the products at issue, Nystatin. The
court denied motions to dismiss the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions, and they are proceeding in discovery.
None of these cases are included in the group of cases on a more
expedited schedule pursuant to the court's July 14, 2020 order.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed a second set of "overarching conspiracy" class
actions against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals dating back
to July 2009 (end payors) or January 2010 (indirect resellers). The
direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their second round overarching
conspiracy complaint in February 2020 with claims dating back to
July 2009.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend their second round December 2019 complaint, and that
motion was granted. On September 4, 2020, and December 15, 2020,
the end payor plaintiffs amended their second round complaint. On
October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs amended their
second round complaint. On December 15, 2020, the indirect reseller
plaintiffs filed another complaint adding allegations for
additional drugs that mirror the other class plaintiffs' claims.

This second set of overarching complaints allege conspiracies
relating to the sale of various products that are not at issue in
the earlier-filed overarching conspiracy class actions, the
majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The amended
indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in
connection with its sales of Betamethasone Dipropionate lotion,
Imiquimod cream, Desonide cream and ointment, and Hydrocortisone
Valerate cream.

The December 2020 indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sales of Adapalene, Ammonium
Lactate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene, Calcipotriene
Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate,
Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Proprionate,
Hydrocortisone Acetate, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate,
Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and
Triamcinolone Acetonide.

The amended end payor complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in
connection with its sale of the following drugs: Adapalene,
Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine
Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox,
Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide,
Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone
Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide,
Mometasone Furoate, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate,
Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide.

The amended direct purchaser complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs:
Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate,
Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate,
Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone
Valerate, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate,
Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the second set of overarching
conspiracy complaints, and responses are currently or will be
stayed.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company is defending
itself against a class action related to the alleged overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which the company neither
makes nor sells suit initiated by an end payor, in Ontario,
Canada.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada
against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the
same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming
Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin.

In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
additional claims based on the State AG complaint of June 2020.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint.

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Playags, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
a consolidated putative class action suit headed by Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System ("OPPRS").

On June 25, and July 31, 2020 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, by two separate plaintiffs against PlayAGS, Inc. and
certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between
August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial
outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its
iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class
members as a result of the decline in the value of the Company's
common stock following its release of its Second Quarter 2019
results on August 7, 2019.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System ("OPPRS") filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the same court asserting similar claims to those alleged in the
first two class action lawsuits, based on substantially the same
conduct.

Specifically, OPPRS claims that the Company, certain of its
officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held
over 50% of the Company's common stock at the beginning of the
class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and misleading
statements concerning, among other things, the Company's
forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and
intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy
of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in
injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline in
the value of the Company's common stock following its release of
its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019.  

OPPRS brings these Exchange Act claims on behalf of a slightly
larger putative class than in the previously-filed actions: all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities
between May 3, 2018 and August 7, 2019. In addition, based on
substantially similar alleged false or misleading statements, OPPRS
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased
Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings.  These
secondary-offering claims are brought against the same defendants
identified above, plus certain of the Company's directors and the
underwriters.

On October 28, 2020 these three related putative class actions were
consolidated into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada with OPPRS
appointed as lead counsel.  

On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants,
again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of a slightly larger putative class than in
any previous complaint (the class period now extends through March
4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class as in OPPRS's
previous complaint.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements during the putative class period
concerning, among other things, the Company's growth, financial
performance, and forward-looking financial outlook, particularly
with respect to the Oklahoma market, resulting in injury to the
purported class members as a result of the decline in the value of
the Company's common stock when the alleged "truth" was revealed
following release of the Company's financial reports on August 7,
2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020.

Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint does not
allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company's
accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting. The
defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to
defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as
to the outcome.

Playags, Inc. is a designer and supplier of EGMs and other products
and services for the gaming industry. The company is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.

PLUM PBC: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Ellison Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN ELLISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUM, PBC; and PLUM, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 4:21-cv-02015-DMR (N.D. Cal., Mar. 23, 2021) is an action
against the Defendants for negligent, reckless, and intentional
practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose in their
packaging, advertising, and statements the presence of arsenic,
cadmium, lead, or mercury (collectively "Heavy Metals") and
perchlorate, or other undesirable toxins or contaminants existing
in their baby food products.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants'
packaging, marketing, and advertising emphasize the inclusion of
quality and safe ingredients, their commitment to organic food, the
absence of any unnatural ingredients, and the safety of their
products for human infant consumption. Yet nowhere do the
Defendants disclose that the Baby Foods include Heavy Metals,
perchlorate, or other ingredients that do not conform to the
labels, packaging, advertising, and statements. The Baby Foods have
been shown to contain significant levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead,
mercury, and perchlorate - all known to pose health risks to
humans, and particularly to infants, the suit says.

Allegedly, the Defendants' wrongful marketing, which includes
misleading, deceptive, unfair, and false marketing and omissions,
allowed them to capitalize on, and reap enormous profits from,
consumers who paid the purchase price or a price premium for Baby
Foods that were not sold as advertised. Defendants continue to
wrongfully induce consumers to purchase their Baby Foods that are
not as advertised.

Plum,Inc. provides nutritious organic baby foods, toddlers, and kid
snack food products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com


PLUSHCARE INC: Mobile App Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ v. PLUSHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01185-DG-PK
(E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that the PlushCare failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate a mobile application
(software that is intended to run on mobile devises such as phones
or table computers) that is not fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its App, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The mobile application at issue is called "PlushCare: Online
Doctor" (the "App") and is available through the Apple "app store"
for download and installation on Apple devices. The Defendant
developed the App and made it available to millions of phone and
tablet users in the Apple app store. The U.S. Supreme Court
recently observed that apps allow users to "send messages, take
photos, watch videos, buy clothes, order food, arrange
transportation, purchase concert tickets, donate to charities, and
the list goes on, the suit says.

The Plaintiff uses the Internet to help his navigate a world of
goods, products and services like the sighted. The Internet,
websites and mobile applications provide him with a window into a
world that he would not otherwise have.

The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


PMI MANAGEMENT: Luu Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Leasing Agents
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAM LUU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PMI MANAGEMENT, LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11962 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 29, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay all
wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a leasing agent from on
or about July 12, 2020 until on or about November 7, 2020.

PMI Management, LLC is a property management company doing business
in California. [BN]

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

POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 motion to dismiss filed in
the putative class action suit entitled, Golden v. Popular, Inc.,
is pending.

Popular has been also named as a defendant on a putative class
action complaint captioned Golden v. Popular, Inc. filed in March
2020 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New
York consumer protection law due to Popular's purported practice of
charging over draft (OD) Fees on transactions that, under
plaintiffs' theory, do not overdraw the account.

Plaintiff describes Popular's purported practice of charging OD
Fees as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative
Transactions" and states that Popular assesses OD Fees over
authorized transactions for which sufficient funds are held for
settlement.

In August 2020, Popular filed a Motion to Dismiss on several
grounds, including failure to state a claim against Popular, Inc.
and improper venue. On October 2, 2020,

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on that
same date, filed an identical complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of the Virgin Islands against Popular, Inc.,
Popular Bank and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR).

On October 27, 2020, a Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of
Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank, arguing failure to state a claim
and lack of minimum contacts of such parties with the U.S.V.I.
district court jurisdiction.

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal against Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank following the
Motion to Dismiss. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, the only defendant
remaining in the case, was served with process on November 13, 2020
and filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 4, 2021.

Plaintiff opposed to such Motion to Dismiss on February 8, 2021 and
BPPR expects to reply on or before March 8, 2021.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Soto-Melendez Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 motion to dismiss filed in
the putative class action suit entitled, Soto-Melendez v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, is still pending.

In February 2020, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was served
with a putative class action complaint captioned Soto-Melendez v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges breach of contract due to BPPR's purported
practice of (a) assessing more than one insufficient funds fee
("NSF Fees") on the same "item" or transaction and (b) charging
both NSF Fees and overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on the same item or
transaction, and is filed on behalf of all persons who during the
applicable statute of limitations period were charged NSF Fees
and/or OD Fees pursuant to these purported practices.

In April 2020, BPPR filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case, which is
now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Diaz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 expert discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et
al.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC have been named defendants in a class action
complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the class against the Popular
Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO
Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the
purported "class" of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest,
for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as
well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance
Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee
and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant
Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery. Each of the Puerto Rico Court of
Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied the Popular
Defendants' request to review the lower court's denial of the
motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint, and, in January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto.

Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it
broadly certified the class, after which the Popular Defendants
filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals
in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to
entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the Popular
Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.

In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it
to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a
mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term.

The Court approved on September 24, 2020 the notice to the class,
which is yet to be published, by Plaintiffs, and set the deadline
for the filing of dispositive motions for May 2021, the Pre-Trial
hearing for August 2021 and several dates for trial between the end
of August and the beginning of October 2021.

Expert discovery remains ongoing.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.

POPULAR INC: Maura Appeals Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 appeal in the putative class
action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et
al., is pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has also been named a defendant
in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura
v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the
defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other
consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not
include a specific amount of damages in their complaint.

After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the
González Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately).
BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which
the Court granted in September 2018.

In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April
2019, which Popular timely opposed.

In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.

In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December
2019. On January 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Plaintiffs filed their appeal brief on July 8, 2020, Appellees
filed their brief on September 21, 2020, and Appellants filed their
reply brief on January 21, 2021.

The appeal is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Petition for Rehearing in Camacho Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 appellants' petition for
rehearing and for rehearing en banc in Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., suit has been denied.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking).

Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable
Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable Refinance
Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan modification
programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act
and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly
and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR
filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most
co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety.

After being denied reconsideration by the District Court, in August
2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. On July 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision dismissing the complaint.

On September 4, 2020, the Appellants filed a petition for rehearing
and for rehearing en banc, which was denied on December 9, 2020.
Proceedings before the First Circuit Court of Appeals have
concluded, although Plaintiffs have until March 9, 2021 to seek
certiorari review before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Arcila FDCPA Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLORIA ARCILA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-3680 (D.N.J.), Judge John
Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The putative class action involves an alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et
seq., based on a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case.  Plaintiff
Arcila incurred a debt on a Sears Mastercard credit card issued by
Citibank, N.A.  After the debt went into default, Citibank sold the
debt to Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates ("PRA"), a debt
collector.  Arcila alleges that when PRA purchased the debt, it
included principal, interest, and fees.

In January of 2019, Arcila filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of
the Bankruptcy Code.  In the bankruptcy case, PRA filed a proof of
claim3 seeking to collect the debt.  On the proof of claim form,
PRA listed $3,567.27 as the amount of the claim, and indicated that
the amount did not include interest or fees.

PRA's failure to indicate an interest or fee amount in its proof of
claim is the basis of the Plaintiff's FDCPA case.  Arcila alleges
that PRA knew that the amount of the debt was not entirely
principal and that the debt included interests and fees when PRA
purchased it from Citibank.  She also asserts that PRA regularly
files proofs of claim in bankruptcy matters that inaccurately
describe defaulted credit card debt as consisting solely of
principal.

Ms. Arcila, however, did not object to the proof of claim during
the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceeding, despite objecting to other
claims.  On May 9, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Chapter
13 plan.  Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(b), an objection
to a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 case "must be filed by the
later of: (1) 60 days from the entry of the order confirming plan;
or (2) 60 days after the claim is filed or amended." The deadline
for the Plaintiff to file an objection to PRA's claim therefore
expired on July 8, 2019.  No timely objection was filed.

Ms. Arcila then filed the putative class action alleging, in her
one-count Complaint, that PRA violated the FDCPA in filing the
proof of claim.

Presently before the Court PRA's motion to dismiss.  PRA moves for
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that (1) the claim is
collaterally estopped by Arcila's failure to timely object during
the bankruptcy proceeding; (2) the Complaint presents an issue of
Bankruptcy law which preempts the FDCPA; and (3) the alleged
violation is not material.  PRA also argues that the complaint
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.

PRA argues that Arcila's FDCPA claim is preempted by Bankruptcy
Rule 3001, which governs proofs of claim and requires the
statements of interest, fees, expenses, or charges.

Judge Vazquez disagrees.  Broadly speaking, he opines that the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claim would require the Court to determine a
bankruptcy-related question, specifically, whether the Defendant's
proof of claim actually violated Bankruptcy Rule 3001.  The issue
is whether the Defendant was required to separate out interest
and/or fees from the debt that it purchased, i.e. interest and fees
that had already accrued (as opposed to any fees or interest that
Defendant was separately claiming as to itself).

As the Defendant points out, there is no binding authority on this
point, and bankruptcy courts are divided on the issue.  On the
other hand, the reasoning of the court in Midland Funding, LLC v.
Johnson, 137 S.Ct. 1407 (2017) concerned a Section 1692f violation,
which the Plaintiff does not raise, and was concerned with
affirmative defenses in bankruptcy matters, an issue that is also
not present.

Nevertheless, the Judge holds that the Supreme Court in Johnson did
not rule that the Bankruptcy Code preempted the FDCPA.  Thus, even
if Johnson arguably "somewhat weakened the precedential value" of
Simon, the Court remains bound by Simon and holds that Arcila's
claim under the FDCPA is not preempted.

With respect to PRA's second argument of dismissal, Judge Vazqiez
finds that in its bankruptcy proof of claim, PRA accurately listed
the full amount, which the Plaintiff admits is correct.  The
failure to distinguish between principal and interest in the case
is therefore not material.

Finally, with respect to PRA's third argument, Judge Vazquez opines
that Arcila had the opportunity to object to the claim and did not
do so.  Arcila has given no reason she was not able to comply with
the procedural safeguards within the Bankruptcy process by
objecting during the Chapter 13 proceeding.  The proof of claim was
filed, the bankruptcy plan was confirmed, and, as a result of
Plaintiff's failure to object, the proof of claim was "deemed
allowed."  Arcila argues that the Court's decision in the case will
not affect the validity of the bankruptcy judgment.

In a sense, this is true of all cases involving issue preclusion:
The judgement of the original case can only be affected through
appeal of that case and will not be impacted by the holding of a
subsequent case, though it is possible that the two judgments could
be inconsistent.  However, the bankruptcy court, in confirming the
plan, decided the issue of the claim's validity.  Arcila cannot now
collaterally attack that decision.  Therefore, Judge Vazquez holds
that, though Arcila's claim is not preempted, the claim fails the
materiality threshold and is precluded by her failure to object
during the bankruptcy proceeding.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Vazquez grants PRA's motion to
dismiss.  Because he holds that Arcila's claim is precluded, the
matter is dismissed with prejudice.  An appropriate Order
accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/r3fpt2fm from Leagle.com.


PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pride Transport, Inc.
The case is styled as Jean-Louis Chalaye, an individual, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Pride Transport, Inc., a Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002766 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
30, 2021).

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

Pride Transport Inc. -- https://www.pridetransport.com/ -- provides
truck transportation services. The Company provides distribution of
food grade materials, expedited shipping, lift gate pick-ups and
delivery, real-time load tracking, and 24/7 client care center
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          3990 Old Town Ave, Ste C204
          San Diego, CA 92110-2933
          Phone: (619) 255-9047
          Fax: (858) 404-9203
          Email: shani@zakaylaw.com


QWEST CORP: Settlement in Sales Practices Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that Lumen Technologies (at the time
known as CenturyLink, Inc.) received final approval of the
settlement of the consumer class actions for payments totaling
$15.5 million plus certain notice and administration costs.

In June 2017, a former employee of a Lumen Technologies subsidiary
filed an employment lawsuit against Lumen Technologies (at the time
known as CenturyLink, Inc.) claiming that she was wrongfully
terminated for alleging that Lumen charged some of its retail
customers for products and services they did not authorize.
Thereafter, based in part on the allegations made by the former
employee, several legal proceedings were filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a consumer class action, was
filed against Lumen Technologies in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that Lumen Technologies
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize. Other complaints asserting similar claims have
been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits
assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.

Also, in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Lumen
Technologies failed to disclose material information regarding
improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law
claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also
been filed.

Beginning June 2017, Lumen Technologies received several
shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August
2017, Lumen Technologies' Board of Directors formed a special
litigation committee of outside directors to address the
allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative
demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state
court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota.

These cases have been brought on behalf of Lumen Technologies
against certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer class actions, the securities investor class actions,
and the federal derivative actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation.

Lumen Technologies received final approval of the settlement of the
consumer class actions for payments totaling $15.5 million plus
certain notice and administration costs. Approximately 12,000
potential class members elected to opt out of the class settlement
and may elect to pursue their individual claims against Lumen
Technologies on these issues through various dispute resolution
processes, including individual arbitration.

Subject to certain conditions, Lumen Technologies has agreed to
settle the claims of approximately 11,000 such class members
asserted by one law firm.

Additionally, Lumen Technologies has reached an agreement settling
the securities investor class actions for payment of $55 million,
which Lumen expects to be paid by its insurers. The settlement of
the securities class claims is subject to court approval.

Lumen has engaged in discussions regarding related claims with a
number of state attorneys general, and has entered into agreements
settling certain of the consumer practices claims asserted by state
attorneys general. While Lumen Technologies does not agree with
allegations raised in these matters, it has been willing to
consider reasonable settlements where appropriate.

Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.

R&L INTERIOR: Duran Seeks to Certify Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON DURAN, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. R&L INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION,
CORP., and LUIS FERMIN, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-09344-AJN
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      consisting of current and former non-managerial assistants,
      laborers, and/or those in similar positions, who performed
      work for Defendants at any time during the relevant FLSA
      period;

   2. requiring the Defendants, within fourteen days of the Court's

      Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing
      the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and
      mobile telephone numbers, all known email addresses, dates of

      employment, and primary languages spoken of all potential
      collective action members who worked for Defendants at any
      point from November 6, 2014 to the present;

   3. permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of this
      action, in English, Spanish, and any other language
      identified by Defendants, via regular mail, text message, and

      email, to the potential collective members, and permitting a

      sixty-day opt-in period;

   4. directing the Defendants to post the Notice at 3315 Hull
      Avenue, Bronx, New York, a location to where the potential
      collective action members routinely report, in a place at
      that location that is visible to all of the potential
      collective action members, and provide an affidavit attesting

      to their compliance and swearing that the Notice will remain

      posted and unobstructed during the entire opt-in period;

   5. tolling the statute of limitations for all putative members'

      FLSA claims from the date of filing of this motion until such

      time as the Court resolves this motion; and

   6. granting any other further relief that the Court deems just
      and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dsOOYo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle E. Mietus, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248–5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248–6027s

R.M. GALICIA: Faces Bell Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
LASHONE BELL, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff v.
R.M. GALICIA, INC., dba PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00475-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 17, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began placing relentless
robocalls to the Plaintiff's cell phone in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt owed by the Plaintiff that was assigned, transferred
or sold to the Defendant in 2018 for collection. Despite the
Plaintiff's effort to cease the Defendant's unsolicited calls
through her attorney, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff's cell phone
with a pre-recorded or artificial voice on July 1, 2020. The
Plaintiff asserts that he had revoked any prior express consent the
Defendant may have believed it had to robo-dial the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff has suffered invasion of legally protected interest in
privacy which caused concrete harm in the form of harassment and
intrusion similar to trespassing. In addition, the Defendant's
calls have forced the Plaintiff and other similarly situated class
members to live without the utility of their cellular phones by
occupying heir cellular telephone with one or more unwanted calls,
causing a nuisance and lost time, added the suit.

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint to seek for statutory damages from
the Defendants for each and every violation, as well as an
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
the future, and other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

R.M. Galicia, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Juliana G. Blaha, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
                  Juliana@SwigartLawGroup.com

                - and –

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste. 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 222-7429
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


RADNET INC: Pfeiffer Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOREEN PFEIFFER, JOSE
CONTRERAS, SUSAN WRIGHT ANNABELLE GONZALES, DONNA HOROWITZ, KELLY
LANCASTER, and DEBRA PALMER, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, v. RADNET, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-09553-RGK-SK (C.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of
      Civil Procedure 23;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield,
      LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class, and Federman & Sherwood
      and The Arnold Law Firm as additional Class counsel.

RadNet is an American radiology firm. The company operates
outpatient diagnostic imaging centers. RadNet is the largest
provider of outpatient imaging services in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39zsAmt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Classes are:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: Dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  lguillon@justice4you.com

               - and -

          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan McGee, Esq.
          jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
          rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway
          Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

RED ROBIN: Discloses Payment of Vigueras Settlement Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2020, that the company has
paid out the Vigueras settlement amount in January 2021.

In July 2017, an hourly Team Member filed a class actions lawsuit
before the United States District Court in Santa Ana, California
(Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc.) alleging the Company
failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods and failed
to reimburse business expenses, among other claims.

In the first quarter of 2020, the Company reached a tentative
settlement resolving all claims for an aggregate $8.5 million.

An additional $4.5 million was accrued during the Company's first
fiscal quarter of 2020 to fully reserve the $8.5 million settlement
amount, which was paid out in January 2021.

Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.,
develops, operates, and franchises full-service restaurants with
556 locations in North America. As of December 31, 2017, the
Company operated 480 Company-owned restaurants located in 44 states
and two Canadian provinces. The Company also had 86 franchised
full-service restaurants in 15 states as of December 31, 2017.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Price Increase in Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; and
ALLIED SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00359 (E.D. Mo.,
Mar. 22, 2021) is an action arising from the Defendants' breach of
their standard form contract with residential and business solid
waste collection customers that hired the Defendants to dispose of
their waste.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' standard form contract
contains a base price which can only be increased upon specific
circumstances, and generally operates to allow the Defendants to
pass through only certain increases in identified costs of
providing services to the customer. The Plaintiff has been assessed
certain price increases which are not authorized by the terms of
its service contract.

The Defendants are aware that the price increases are not
authorized because they have offered to waive the price increases
for the Plaintiff and other customers if the customers complain.
The Defendants have imposed the service charge increases in order
to increase their operating and profit margins rather than to
recoup their increased costs of providing services, the suit
alleges.

Republic Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection and disposal services in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          Steven W. Duke, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave, #1600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 391-4700
          Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
          E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com
                  steve@keanelawllc.com

               -and-

          Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC
          1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 802-7730
          Facsimile: (314) 260-9645
          E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com


RITUALS COSMETICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rituals Cosmetics USA
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Young, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rituals Cosmetics USA
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00557-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal., March 30, 2021).

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

Rituals -- https://www.rituals.com/en-us/home -- is the first brand
in the world to combine Home & Body cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERVIEW HOTEL: Nelson Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY NELSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. INDUS COMPANIES, INC., and RIVERVIEW HOTEL LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00982-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 9, 2020) asserts claims
against the Defendant for their failure to properly pay employees
overtime wages seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other similarly situated hotel
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. During
their employment with Defendants, they provided services to
Defendants' customers. He adds that the Defendants established an
illegal pay practice in order to reduce the amount of overtime
wages it paid to him and other hotel employees. Specifically, the
Defendants modified his and similarly situated employees' time
punches to reduce the number of hours they worked in order to
decrease or avoid paying overtime, he added.

Mr. Nelson is an individual, United States citizen, and a resident
of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio. Mr.
Nelson was employed by Defendants beginning in or around September
2019 to January 2021. He primarily worked as an hourly, non-exempt
employee of the Defendants as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio
Acts.

Defendant Indus owns and operates hotels in and central Ohio and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Trading Platform, Lybrook Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER LYBROOK, ALEC ENGLISH, MICHAEL WATSON, and CODY HILL DAMON
MUNCY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 4:21-cv-01596-YGR (N.D.
Calif., March 5, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons or
entities who sold any of the Affected Securities via the Robinhood
trading platform on or after January 28, 2021 as a result of
Robinhood's restrictions, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Affected Securities include American Airlines Group Inc.
(traded on NASDAQ under ticker "AAL"), AMC Entertainment Holdings
Inc. (NYSE: "AMC"), BlackBerry Limited (NYSE: "BB"), Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc. (NASDAQ: "BBBY"), and GameStop Corp. (NYSE: "GME").

On January 28, 2021, Robinhood, and other brokers, restricted
trading on the Affected Securities to closing securities only. As a
result of this injection of fear into the market and artificial
restriction of demand, the price of the Affected Securities dropped
precipitously, causing significant damages to retail investors, the
suit says.

The complaint further asserts that each of the Affected Securities
had become popular amongst retail investors, and had recently
experienced high trade volume. This increased interest allegedly
caused increased volatility and large losses to those institutions
that shorted the Affected Securities, losing more than $5 billion
dollars in the days leading up to January 28, 2021. Most notably,
GME shares experienced a meteoric rise in January 2021, rising from
a close of $18.84 per share on December 31, 2020, to $347.51 on
January 27, 2021.

The series of events that led to Robinhood's manipulation begins
with Gamestop, which is traded on the NYSE under the ticker "GME."
For years, GME had an absurdly high short percentage of float, over
200%. That means that for every share in the market, two were being
shorted. Those who shorted GME hoped that the price of Gamestop
securities would decline significantly or that Gamestop would
become bankrupt, leaving the shorted shares worthless. Retail
investors, believing that the stock was undervalued, began
purchasing the stock at a high volume, the suit added.

Plaintiff Spencer Lybrook is a resident of Eugene, Oregon. He first
began using Robinhood's online trading platform on January 17,
2021. On January 27, 2021, after learning about the "short squeeze"
related to certain stocks such as GameStop, Mr. Lybrook purchased 5
shares of BlackBerry at $23.28 per share and 22.5 shares of Nokia
at $6.65 per share, expecting those stocks' value to increase over
time.

Plaintiff English is a resident of Smithfield, Virginia. He first
began using Robinhood's online trading platform in or before
October 2019. On January 27, 2021, after learning from social media
about trends related to certain stocks, Mr. English placed a limit
order to purchase25 shares of Nokia at $5.22 per share. After
Robinhood announced its restrictions on January 28, 2021, Mr.
English attempted to place an order for 5 more shares of Nokia, but
that order was not processed until January 29, 2021, at $5.12 per
share.

Robinhood Financial purports to operate as an institutional
brokerage company. The Company purports to provide online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invest in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds. Robinhood Securities is registered as a
broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Robinhood Securities acts as a clearing broker and clears trades
introduced by its affiliate the Defendant Robinhood Financial.
Robinhood Markets is the corporate parent of Defendants Robinhood
Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq
          Maxwell Goins, Esq
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (519) 463-3900
          Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
          E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  mgoins@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com
                  scs@sstriallawyers.com

ROBUST ENTERPRISE: Mazzara Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
IOLANDA MAZZARA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ROBUST ENTERPRISE CORP. d/b/a LACE WAYNE, and SIMONE MIR, Case
No. 2:21-cv-04609 (D.N.J., March 9, 2020) seeks unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, unlawfully
retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, the supporting New Jersey common law, and the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination (NJLAD), that she was deprived of her
statutory rights as a result of the Defendants' discriminatory
employment practices and subjected to bias-based harassment on the
basis of national origin, and seeks to recover economic damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff is an adult who resides in Richmond County, New York.


The Defendants owned and operated an adult entertainment club under
the tradename "Lace Wayne," located at 24 Galesi Drive, Wayne, New
Jersey. The Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (718) 971-0326
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero
v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.

On September 2, 2020, the class action lawsuit was amended to
include two additional proposed class representatives.  

This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California's Private
Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments
(Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.;
Case No RIC1804127).

Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or
reasonably estimated at this time, we have vigorously defended this
matter and intend to continue doing so."

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.

SANOFI: Continues to Defend APESAC Class Action in Paris
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by APESAC (Association des Parents d'Enfants
souffrant du Syndrome de l'Anti-Convulsivant).

In a class action lawsuit filed in May 2017 by the APESAC
(Association des Parents d'Enfants souffrant du Syndrome de
l'Anti-Convulsivant) before the Paris Civil Court, the judge denied
claimant's motion on interim measures in November 2017.

APESAC lodged an appeal which was rejected by the Court of Appeal
of Paris in October 2018.

No date for trial hearing has been set yet.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Discovery Ongoing in Lantus(R) Direct Purchasers Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class
action suits initiated by direct purchasers of Lantus(R).

In December 2016 and January 2017, two putative class actions were
filed against Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH in the US Federal Court in
Massachusetts on behalf of direct purchasers of Lantus(R) alleging
certain antitrust violations.

In January 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint against
Sanofi.

Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, which issued its decision on February 13, 2020
reversing and remanding to the district court.

Discovery is underway.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions.

SANOFI: Facing 25 Putative Class Actions Related to Zantac(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2020, that as of December 31, 2020, there were a total
of 977 filed personal injury cases (representing 1,607 ingesting
plaintiffs) and 25 putative class actions related to Zantac(R) (the
brand name for ranitidine).

In September 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
announced it was investigating the claims of an online pharmacy's
Citizen Petition that the medication Zantac(R) (the brand name for
ranitidine) used for stomach heartburn contains or can generate the
chemical N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), an alleged human
carcinogen.

As a precautionary measure, Sanofi initiated a voluntary recall of
branded over-the-counter Zantac(R) in October 2019. Concurrent with
FDA's investigation, multiple personal injury lawsuits and class
actions alleging that Zantac(R) causes various cancers and seeking
damages for either alleged personal injuries or alleged economic
injuries were filed.

Most of those cases have been coordinated into an MDL in the
Southern District of Florida. That Court entered a case management
schedule that provides for 18 months of discovery leading up to
motions on general causation and briefing on class certification.

Other cases are pending in various state courts. In addition, in
November 2019, Sanofi received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID)
related to this issue from the Arizona Attorney General.

In June 2020, the New Mexico Attorney General filed a complaint
against Sanofi, the previous marketing authorization holders for
branded Zantac(R), a dozen generic manufacturers, and several
retailers. The complaint brings claims for alleged violations of
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, violations of the New Mexico
False Advertising Act, violations of the New Mexico Public Nuisance
Statute, common law public nuisance, and negligence.

In June 2020, Sanofi received a notice from the US Department of
Justice Civil Division and US Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania of an investigation into allegations that
pharmaceutical manufacturers violated the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. Section 3729, in relation to the drug Zantac® and
ranitidine hydrochloride through alleged failure to disclose to the
federal government information about the potential presence of
NDMA. The notice requests information and documents from Sanofi
including applications and communications with FDA.

In November 2020, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore filed a
complaint against Sanofi, the previous marketing authorization
holders for branded Zantac(R), generic manufacturers, and several
retailers. The complaint alleges violations of the Maryland
Consumer Protection statute, public nuisance, and negligence.

In January 2021, Sanofi was served with the Center for
Environmental Health's Second Amended Complaint alleging
Proposition 65 violations. The case, which also names generic
manufacturers and retailers, is pending in California Superior
Court in Alameda County.

As of December 31, 2020, there were a total of 977 filed personal
injury cases (representing 1,607 ingesting plaintiffs) and 25
putative class actions. Additional cases may be filed.

Sanofi said, "It is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably
the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on
Sanofi."

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions.


SANOFI: Facing 5 Zantac(R) Related Putative Class Suits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2020, that the company is facing 5 putative class
action suits in Canada related to Zantac(R)

In October 2019, an application to authorize the bringing of a
class action on behalf of all Canadian residents was filed in
Quebec Superior Court relating to ranitidine and naming Sanofi
Consumer Health Inc. as a defendant. Representative Plaintiffs
claim that they suffered personal injury, including cancer, from
the ingestion of ranitidine and are seeking general and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount.

In October 2019, and April 2020, two proposed class action
proceedings were filed in Ontario Superior Court relating to
ranitidine and naming Sanofi Consumer Health Inc., Sanofi-Aventis
Canada Inc., Chattem (Canada) Inc. and Sanofi Pasteur Limited as
Defendants. Representative Plaintiffs claim that they suffered
personal injury, including cancer, from the ingestion of ranitidine
and are seeking general, special, statutory, punitive and
aggravated damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, they seek restitution for unjust enrichment in an
amount equivalent to the purchase price of Zantac(R).

In December 2019, a proposed class action proceeding was filed in
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench relating to ranitidine and naming
Sanofi Consumer Health Inc. as a defendant. The representative
plaintiff is claiming on behalf of all Canadian residents damages,
including personal injury, arising allegedly from the ingestion of
ranitidine. General, special and punitive damages are being claimed
in an unspecified amount.

In February 2020, an amended class action proceeding now naming
Sanofi Consumer Health Inc. as a Defendant along with 21 other
Defendants was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The
representative plaintiff is claiming on behalf of all Canadian
residents damages, including personal injury, arising allegedly
from the ingestion of ranitidine. General, special and punitive
damages are being claimed in an unspecified amount.

As a result, as of December 31, 2020, 5 class actions have been
filed in the above-mentioned provinces; but additional cases may be
filed. It is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the
outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on
Sanofi.

Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and
engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of
therapeutic solutions.

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Ruf-Tepper Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Daniel and Rebecca
Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A., is pending.

Santander Bank, N.A. is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, captioned Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander
Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501.

The Tepper Lawsuit, filed in January 2020, alleges that the Bank is
obligated to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts pursuant to
state law.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Bank has filed a
motion to dismiss.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Deka Investment Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court in Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K, entered a Final Judgement and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in SC's initial public offering (IPO), including
Santander Investment Securities Inc. (SIS), on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs
moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.
On July 28, 2020, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully
resolves all of the plaintiffs' claims, for a cash payment of $47
million.

On August 13, 2020, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice, setting the
final settlement hearing and on January 12, 2021, the Court entered
a Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Ponsa-Rabell Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243, have
appealed the order of dismissal made by the District Court.

Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Santander are
defendants in a putative class action alleging federal securities
and common law claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of
more than $180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of
CEFs during the period from December 2012 to October 2013.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et.
al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.

In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On July 22, 2020, the District Court dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Sanchez Putative Suit vs. Bank Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Santander Bank,
N.A. continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-5775.

Santander Bank, N.A. is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, captioned Crystal Sanchez, et. Al. v. Santander Bank, N.A.,
No. 17-cv-5775.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bank failed to pay overtime to current
and former branch operations managers. The Court denied the Bank's
motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff's motion seeking to amend its complaint to add additional
state law claims is fully briefed.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Junk Giuliano Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation 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 motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit, is pending.

On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee
for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against SGC,
Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those
patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for
automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the Defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On September 8, 2020, Rancho's Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia
House Casino filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
the company (SGC), Bally Technologies, Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a
Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts federal
antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of
particular U.S. patents.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic
card shufflers sold or leased in the United States.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons
and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card
shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any
predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between
April 1, 2009, and the present.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint
asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On October 29, 2020, the trial court consolidated the Giuliano and
Rancho's Club Casino matters.

On October 30, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On November 9, 2020,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first
amended consolidated complaint, and also filed a motion to compel
arbitration of plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano's individual claims.

Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the consolidated
lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against
them."

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Nix Tonkawa Tribe of Indians Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit initiated by the
Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises, is
pending.

On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against Scientific Games Corporation (SGC), Bally Technologies,
Inc. and SG Gaming, f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc.

On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua
Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a
plaintiff. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those
patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for
card shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United
States.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated
United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers
from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009.

The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of
plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint. On November 20, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a
finding that defendants are collaterally estopped from
re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation versus
Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and
Poydras-Talrick Holdings.

Scientific Games said, "We are currently unable to determine the
likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them."

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fife Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation 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 company's Parent
motion's to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims and to dismiss
the action, or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, is
pending.

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against the company's
Parent, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing the company's online social casino games, including
but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish Casino.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.

On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied
on December 18, 2018. The company's Parent filed its answer to the
putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019.

On August 24, 2020, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend her complaint and to substitute a new plaintiff,
Donna Reed, for the initial plaintiff, and re-captioned the matter
Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation.

On August 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
against the company's Parent, asserting the same claims, and
seeking the same relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife.

On September 8, 2020, the company's Parent filed a motion to compel
arbitration of plaintiff's claims and to dismiss the action, or, in
the alternative, to transfer the action to the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, and that motion is
fully-briefed and pending before the trial court.

SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
Although the case was brought against Scientific Games, pursuant to
the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would expect to cover or
contribute to any damage awards due to the matter arising as a
result of our business."

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.

SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation 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 motion for class
certification in the consolidated putative class action suit in New
York, is pending.

On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering
(IPO).

The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class
A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with the
SciPlay IPO which commenced on or about May 3, 2019.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $146.0 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.

On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class
action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively
similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and
substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the
PRS Action.

On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single
lawsuit.

On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action. On August 28, 2020, the court issued an oral
ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion to certify the putative class.

SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot
Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games
comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots.
The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and
changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay
Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games
Corporation.


SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation 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 putative class action
suit initiated by John Good, remains stayed.

On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay's
underwriters with respect to the SciPlay initial public offering
(IPO).

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to the
SciPlay IPO that it completed on or about May 7, 2019.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.

On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that was pending in the
SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.

On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that extended the stay pending a ruling on class certification in
the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.

SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot
Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual games
comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes Slots.
The company was formerly known as SG Social Games Corporation and
changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March 2019. SciPlay
Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific Games
Corporation.

SENTRY ON-SITE: Langston Seeks Security Workers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL LANGSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENTRY ON-SITE SECURITY CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00226-HE (W.D. Okla., March 17, 2021)
challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and policies
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt security worker for approximately a year until about
November or December 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated security workers as
independent contractors. The Defendant required them to arrive at
work 10 to 15 minutes before their scheduled shift for "pass on",
but the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent
for that pre-shift duties that was an integral and indispensable
part of their principal activities. As a result, despite routinely
working 40 or more hour per workweek, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated security workers were not paid overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40. In addition, the Defendant
failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid pre- and/or
post-shift work, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action for
himself and other similarly situated security workers seeking to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and other additional relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

Sentry On-Site Security Corporation provides off-duty police
officers or licensed security guards to provide round-the-clock,
on-site security. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 824-5770
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

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


SHOE PALACE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoe Palace
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sarah Young, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Shoe Palace
Corporation, a California corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00559-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal., March 30, 2021).

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

Shoe Palace -- https://www.shoepalace.com/ -- is an athletic
footwear and apparel retail chain in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SILVANA RESTAURANT: Facing Jimenez Class Suit Over Labor Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, v. SILVANA RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a LOMBARDO'S, LOMBARDO
PIZZA INC. d/b/a LOMBARDO'S, MARIO LOMBARDO, and PETER LOMBARDO,
Case No. 7:21-cv-01983 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020) 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 two restaurants as a single
integrated enterprise under the trade name "Lombardo's" in the
state of New York.

Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked shifts
exceeding 10 hours in duration. However, after he started to
receive tips in August 2020, he did not receive any spread of hours
premium for working such shifts, as required under the NYLL.
Similarly, Class Members regularly worked shifts exceeding 10 hours
in duration but were not paid spread of hours premium.

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

SIMMS ASSOCIATES: Faces Helms FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMMS Associates,
Inc. The case is captioned as HELMS v. SIMMS ASSOCIATES, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04601-RBK-AMD (D.N.J., March 9, 2020).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit and is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Robert B. Kugler.

SIMM Associates are accounts receivable management specialists
working with creditors to recover outstanding consumer credit
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

SIMPLY MOVING: Scott Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. SIMPLY MOVING & STORAGE, and STEFAN MARCALI DOE, AND
DIOP ROCK DOE, representing fictitious and unknown Co-Defendants
yet to be ascertained, Case No. 1:21-cv-01935 (S.D.N.Y., March 5,
2021) seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week during his employment with the Defendants but did not
receive any overtime pay for those hours nor was he paid time and
one half his regular rate.

Simply Moving & Storage is a private storage service provider based
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sacco & Fillas, LLP
          PATRICIA ROSE LYNCH, ESQ.
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2240
          E-mail: Plynch@saccofillas.com

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast 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 discovery ongoing
in the consolidated putative class action suit before the Northern
District of Illinois court.

The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the
industry.

On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other
broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on
broadcast television stations throughout the United States and
engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
November 6, 2020.

Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written
discovery requests, and the Court has set a pretrial schedule
requiring discovery to be completed by July 1, 2022, and briefing
on class certification to be completed by November 14, 2022.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Securities Suit in Maryland Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast 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 securities
class action suit entitled, In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB, has been
concluded.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland (the District of Maryland) against the
Company, Christopher Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action is
now captioned In re Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB.

On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an
amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as
defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures
concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b)
the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing
information. The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was opposed by lead plaintiff.

On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a decision granting the
motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion to dismiss in
part. On February 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, to certify dismissal as
final and appealable. Defendants filed an opposition to this
motion.

On July 20, 2020, the Court issued a decision denying plaintiffs'
motion and dismissing the remaining claims (which the Court
previously had not dismissed in its February 4, 2020 decision)
based on lack of standing.

The plaintiffs did not appeal this decision, and the Securities
Action, therefore, has concluded.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.

SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement in San Diego Suit Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the settlement in the
purported class action suit initiated by two former Home Delivery
team members, has been granted final approval.

On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed
suit, now venued in San Diego County Superior Court, California,
alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group.

The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed or refused to adopt
adequate practices, policies and procedures relating to wage
payments, record keeping, employment disclosures, meal and rest
breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The parties have executed a settlement agreement, including the
settlement and release of certain additional related claims that
are contained in a consolidated complaint, which received final
Court approval on January 8, 2021 and is proceeding through the
final administrative and appeal processes.

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SMCS SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON THOMPSON CLEVENGER,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. SMCS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a STAR MULTI CARE CO., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02677-PAG (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

   a. conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
      action; and

   b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email

      to all present and former full-time hourly homecare
      providers, including but not limited to, LPNs and aides,
      employed by the Defendants in Ohio from December 1, 2017 to
      the present;

   c. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such present and former employees
      of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them

      to opt into the case by signing and submitting a Consent to
      Join Form;

   d. directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days a Roster
      of such present and former employees that includes their full

      names, their dates of employment, and their last known home
      addresses and personal email addresses;

   e. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the Court,

      be sent within 14 days of receipt of the Roster to such
      present and former employees using the home and email
      addresses listed in the Roster;

   f. directing the Defendants to provide a Declaration that the
      produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and

   g. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in

      the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or
      email addresses are found for one or more of such present or

      former employees.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2POfF96
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

              - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

SMITH & SMITH: Connot Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINNEA CONNOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMITH & SMITH INVESTORS LTD., d/b/a HAWKEYE
ADJUSTMENT AND COLLECTIONS, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00043 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about March 25, 2020 regarding the
Plaintiff's alleged debt that was incurred to Midlands Clinic
primarily for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of
creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and
internet. Purportedly, the Defendant contracted with Midlands
Clinic to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt. The Defendant's
collection letter indicated that for each electronic payment
transaction to be made by the Plaintiff, he will be charged a $3.00
convenience fee that was not authorized by the agreement creating
the debt or permitted by law, the suit adds.

The Defendant's attempt to collect an amount not owed by the
Plaintiff has misled and deceived the Plaintiff into the belief
that she falsely owed an additional $3.00 which is a violation of
the FDCPA. In addition, the Plaintiff has incurred an informational
injury as a result of the Defendant's false information provided,
the suit asserts.

To compensate for the damage which she has suffered as a result of
the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory
damages from the Defendants, as well as litigation costs together
with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

Smith & Smith Investors Ltd. d/b/a Hawkeye Adjustment and
Collections 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


SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Class Suit Ongoing in Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit in Canada by two victims of
a shooting that took place in Toronto.

The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The
action was filed on December 16, 2019.  

The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages,
CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in
an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs.  

The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members. One victim
was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered
unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting.  

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes
that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting
and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent
design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a
class action.  

On July 13, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order
striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety.

On February 11, 2021, the court granted the company's motion in
part and denied it in part.

Smith & Wesson said, "We intend to file a motion for leave to
appeal the court’s decision."

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company
offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related
products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and
security agencies. Smith & Wesson Brands serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company 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 company's
petition for review of the trial court's decision in the putative
class action suit initiated by St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust with the Texas Supreme Court remains
pending.

On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.

The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision
with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court requested a response
from the plaintiff. The Court subsequently ordered full briefing on
the merits of the case.

The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage.

The Company denies all allegations and intends to continue to
defend this case vigorously.

Southwestern said, "The Company does not expect this case to have a
material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial
position or cash flows of the Company. Additionally, it is not
possible at this time to estimate the amount of any additional
loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible."

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

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.

SPARK ENERGY: Subsidiary Facing Glikin Purported Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's subsidiary is
facing a purported variable rate class action entitled, Glikin, et
al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC.

On January 14, 2021, a purported variable rate class action was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC,
attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers
(including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor
to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or
gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations
period up to and including the date of judgment.

Spark Energy said, "The Company believes there is no merit to this
case and plans to vigorously defend this matter; however, given the
current early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome
of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


STANDARD FIRE: Lindenbaum Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Fire
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Roberta Lindenbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Standard Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00691-SO (N.D.
Ohio, March 29, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

The Standard Fire Insurance Company -- http://www.travelers.com/--
operates as an insurance company. The Company underwrites auto,
fire, marine, and casualty insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown, PA 18104
          Phone: (610) 621-4550
          Fax: (610) 978-2970
          Email: adam@savettlaw.com


STATE FARM: Han Insurance Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL HAN, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. STATE FARM FIRE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. BER-L-794-21 (Filed Feb. 4, 2021),
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
March 2, 2021.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-04219-CCC-MF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he owns real property located at 46
Chateau Road, Palisades Park, Bergen County, New Jersey, which
State Farm's records reflect is Plaintiff's residence. Accordingly,
the plaintiff is presumed to be a citizen of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff also asserts that State Farm issued an insurance
policy covering his property in Bergen County, New Jersey, and that
the property sustained damage by fire on or about July 27, 2020
which "constituted a covered occurrence" under the State Farm
policy. He contends that State Farm prepared an estimate of the
damage to his property using a software program called Xactimate.
According to the Plaintiff, the Xactimate program offers a choice
of pricing repair costs "based on work in restoration, service, or
remodeling environments" or "based on a new construction
environment," and for most construction line items priced by
Xactimate "the cost of that item for a reconstruction is higher
than the pricing of the same item for new construction."

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was formed in 1935 to provide
property insurance for State Farm customers in the United
States.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David F. Swerdlow, Esq.
          Amanda A. Meehan, Esq.
          WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP
          120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 448-7600
          E-mail: dswerdlow@windelsmarx.com
                  ameehan@windelsmarx.com

               - and -

          Sandra L. Musumeci, Esq.
          Brian J. Neff
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          136 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 660-1000
          E-mail: smusumeci@rshc-law.com
                  bneff@rshc-law.com

STERLING BAY: Faces Goddess RICO Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
GODDESS AND BAKER WACKER L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERLING BAY COMPANIES,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01597 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 23,
2021) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

According to the Plaintiff, the complaint is a class action brought
by the tenants in certain Chicago office buildings managed by
Sterling Bay for conspiring with the labor unions representing its
employees and local moving companies to force these tenants to hire
union only contractors, particularly movers and the building trades
such as electricians, painters and carpet installers.

The result is that Sterling Bay's tenants must pay for higher
priced unionized labor. These tenants have suffered damages from
this ongoing conspiracy, the suit says.

The conspiracy is an illegal "hot cargo" agreement carried out by
Sterling Bay at the buildings listed below in the Chicago Loop and
West Loop. By requiring tenants in these buildings to use unionized
labor at the behest of the unions in order to move into and build
out their offices - or not be allowed to do business - Sterling Bay
is compounding the hot cargo agreement with violations of the Hobbs
Act, a type of racketeering activity, the suit added.

STERLING BAY COMPANIES, L.L.C. operates as a real estate investment
and development company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.com

               -and-

          Howard Foster, Esq.
          Matthew Galin, Esq.
          FOSTER PC
          10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 875
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-1600
          E-mail: hfoster@fosterpc.com
                  mgalin@fosterpc.com


STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Malone Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VELVET MALONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC, ASHLEY
FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 34-2021-00293722-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 29,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00362 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Government Code, and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
all wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages on
termination, unfair business practices, and discrimination.

Stoneledge Furniture, LLC is a retail furniture company doing
business in California.

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. is an American home furnishings
manufacturer and retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                
         Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
         John D. Hayashi, Esq.
         David J. Rashe, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
         Telephone: (714) 830-0600
         Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
         E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
                 david.rashe@morganlewis.com

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Underpays Recycle Employees, Sanchez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN SANCHEZ and AARON SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC,
TODD R WANEK, RUTH HOU, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11981 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay
overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay
reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

Plaintiffs Martin Sanchez and Aaron Sanchez worked for the
Defendants as recycle employees in Los Angeles County, California
from on or about March of 2019 until on or about October 17, 2020
and from on or about September of 2019 until on or about March 13,
2020, respectively.

Stoneledge Furniture, LLC is a retail furniture company doing
business in California. [BN]

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

SURGICAL CARE: Faces Spradling Suit Over No-Poach Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN SPRADLING v. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC, SCAI HOLDINGS,
LLC, ANDREW HAYEK, UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITED SURGICAL
PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY, INC., UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-01324 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2021) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
seeking to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

According to the complaint, SCA, United, USPI, and Does agreed not
to compete for each other's senior-level employees in the United
States, refraining from soliciting or hiring employees absent the
knowledge and consent of their existing employers.

The Defendants' no-poach agreements were not necessary to any
legitimate business transaction or lawful collaboration among the
companies. The Defendants' conspiracy was strictly a tool to
suppress their senior-level employees' compensation, thereby
reducing their own expenses, the suit says.

The conspiracy disrupted the efficient allocation of labor that
would have existed if the Defendants had competed for, rather than
colluded against, their current and prospective senior-level
employees. The Defendants' agreements also denied their
senior-level employees access to job opportunities, restricted
their mobility, and deprived them of significant information that
they could have used to negotiate for better compensation and terms
of employment, added the suit.

Mr. Allen Spradling is a resident of Hoover, Alabama. He was
employed by the Defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC from
September 22, 2008 to April 26, 2013, first as a Manager, Program
Management Office, and then as a Director, Information Technology.

SCA, is one of the largest providers of outpatient surgery in the
United States. UnitedHealth is an American for-profit managed
health care company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. United Surgical
was founded in 1998, is an American ambulatory care company based
in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  blondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Chris K.L. Young, Esq.
          Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
          Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
                  areddy@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  jaz@kellerlenkner.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6770
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com

TD AMERITRADE: Manipulates Trading Platform, Shaeffer Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS SHAEFFER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Case No. (March 8, 2020)
sues TD Ameritrade for violations of contractual duties under
Nebraska state law.

Mr. Francis Shaeffer contends that TD purposely, knowingly and
willfully prevented him and the proposed class from trading in AMC
stock from its trading platform in the midst of the short squeeze,
thereby manipulating the open market to artificially lower the
price.  He sues on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The Plaintiff asserts this nationwide class action on behalf of all
TD brokerage account customers who attempted to sell AMC securities
through TD's trading platform and were prohibited from doing or
delayed in doing so on January 28, 2021, and who sustained damages
as a result. The Plaintiff brings this action for breaches of
contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The
contracts and covenant are governed by Nebraska law.

Allegedly, TD used its power as a securities broker, along with its
platform's, and on-line trading devices, tools and equipment, to
block Plaintiff and members of Plaintiff's putative class who are
TD account holders from trading stock in AMC Entertainment Holding,
Inc., a company whose securities are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol (AMC). TD did so deliberately during a
"short squeeze" market condition that was fully known to TD. A
"short squeeze" occurs when persons holding positions requiring
that they deliver AMC shares (or share s of other companies) they
do not have must find them to fulfill obligations, but the shares
cannot be found in the markets because they are withheld from trade
by owners or market-impacting brokers who prevent access to the
market by investors seeking shares. TD's actions harmed plaintiff
and the proposed class, added the suit.

Plaintiff Francis Shaeffer is a resident of the State of Georgia.

TD is an online brokerage firm used by many investors and is
commission free. TD markets itself as providing its customers
access to a spectrum of resources including real time quotes,
charts, third-party analyst reports and the most advanced trading
platforms to ensure the customer has the power to build the
customer's stock trading strategy the way he/she wants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Domina, Esq.
          DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
          2425 S. 144 th St.
          Omaha, NE 68144
          Telephone: (402) 493-4100
          E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com

               - and -

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David J. Worley, Esq.
          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          Stuart Guber, Esq.
          Leslie Toran, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
                  david@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com
                  stuart@ewlawllc.com
                  leslie@ewlawllc.com

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Settlement in Prause Suit Granted Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the district court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement in Prause v.
TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368.

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against TechnipFMC and certain
current and former officers and employees of TechnipFMC.

The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the restatement of the company's first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in our internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


The shareholder also asserted a claim for alleged violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with the reporting
of certain financial results in our Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed in 2016.

On December 13, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to settle all claims asserted in the suit with
prejudice.

The defendants entered into the Stipulation solely to eliminate the
burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation, and
denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the claims and
contentions alleged by the shareholder plaintiff in this action.

On December 16, 2020, the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and ordering notice to the
settlement class. A settlement hearing is scheduled in the first
quarter 2021.

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.

TEXAS: Dismissal of Black v. McLane Without Prejudice Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK, Appellant v. MARSHA MCLANE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS CIVIL COMMITMENT OFFICE, Appellee,
Case No. 07-19-00241-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas,
Seventh District, Amarillo, affirmed the trial court's order
dismissing Black's claims without prejudice.

Appellant Black, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
suit against Appellee McLane, Executive Director of the Texas Civil
Commitment Office, and others, challenging the constitutionality of
chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.  Black pleaded his
suit as a class-action lawsuit; however, the record does not
reflect that class certification ever occurred.

Ms. McLane filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court
granted, and then dismissed Black's suit without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Black was convicted of indecency with a
child in 2006 and was sentenced to 12 years confinement.  In April
2016, he was civilly committed after a jury found him to be a
"sexually violent predator."  The court that ordered his civil
commitment is the 274th District Court of Guadalupe County, Texas.
Since that commitment, he has been housed in the Civil Commitment
Facility in Lamb County, Texas, and has filed various suits and
mandamus proceedings in courts having jurisdiction in both
Guadalupe and Lamb Counties.

In this most recent suit, Black filed a petition in the 154th
District Court of Lamb County, asserting the Lamb County District
Court had jurisdiction to entertain his constitutional challenges
to section 841.082(a)(4)(A)(ii), (iii) of the Texas Health and
Safety Code.

By his suit, Black sought declaratory relief, an immediate
preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to have "these
unconstitutional devices (GPS tracking monitors) permanently
removed."  Despite the requested relief, Black specifically
asserted he was not challenging the requirements of his civil
commitment.

Ms. McLane responded with a plea to the jurisdiction alleging that
the 154th District Court of Lamb County lacked jurisdiction to
entertain Black's suit because essentially, the remedy he sought
was removal of the GPS tracking device -- a modification of his
commitment requirements which could only be provided by the court
that originally ordered his civil commitment.  McLane proposed that
Black's constitutional challenge was simply a disguise for removal
of the requirement that he wear a GPS tracking device.

After a brief hearing on McLane's plea to the jurisdiction, at
which Black testified, the trial judge of the 154th District Court
agreed the court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and it was
dismissed without prejudice.  The trial judge further announced
that Black was free to file his suit in Guadalupe County, the court
of proper jurisdiction, to address any amendments to his order of
commitment.  In lieu of refiling his claim in the 274th District
Court of Guadalupe County, Texas, Black appealed the trial court's
dismissal of his suit to the Court.

The gist of Black's complaints is that requiring him to wear a GPS
tracking device while confined in a maximum-security facility is
punitive and violates his constitutional rights.  He questions the
Legislature's intent with regard to the statute's requirement that
confined individuals in more restrictive tiers of treatment be
required to wear tracking devices.  He urges that tracking devices
should only be intended to monitor individuals out in the community
and not those, who like himself, are confined.

Mr. Black presents the following issues questioning the trial
court's order of dismissal: (1) Lamb County has inherent
jurisdiction over his constitutional claims; (2) a committing
court's exclusive jurisdiction is limited to specific proceedings
none of which encompass constitutional challenges; and (3)
interpreting the jurisdiction provision as granting the committing
court exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges
conflicts with the restriction on jurisdiction over proceedings
under section 841.085 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

In toto, Black's issues can be distilled into one complaint
questioning whether the Legislature intended that a civil
commitment court retain exclusive jurisdiction over a
constitutional challenge to the commitment requirements of section
841.082.  McLane responds that Black's suit is essentially a
petition to modify the conditions of his civil commitment under
chapter 841 of the Code and that the intent of the Legislature is
clear that committing courts retain jurisdiction over such claims.
By reply brief, Black disputes McLane's contentions.

The Court of Appeals agrees with McLane.  As previously noted,
subsections (d) and (e) of section 841.082 provide that the
committing court retains jurisdiction with respect to proceedings
under subchapter E and modifications of a civil commitment order
are to be made by the committing court.  Requiring certain claims
that are brought pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act to
remain in the committing court is "logical, prevents different
courts from issuing competing orders as to the same committed
person, and maintains continuity of oversight."

At the hearing in the underlying case, Black testified he was
civilly committed in the 274th District Court of Guadalupe County.
As such, the record unequivocally establishes that the 154th
District Court of Lamb County did not have jurisdiction over
Black's suit.  Thus, applying a de novo review, the Court of
Appeals concludes the trial court did not err in granting McLane's
plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Black's suit without
prejudice.  Black's issues are overruled.

The trial court's Order Dismissing Claims Without Prejudice is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/d8962pm7 from Leagle.com.


TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Strougo Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Robert Strougo, is
pending.

On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020.


The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the
Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief
executive officer as defendants.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business
that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On August 18, 2020, the Court appointed Sheet Metal Workers Local
No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on November 13, 2020.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 4, 2020.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.

TIVITY HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Weiner Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO
TRAMUTO, GLENN HARGREAVES and ADAM HOLLAND, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01469 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, denied both the Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class
and their Motion for Summary Judgment.

For yet a fourth and fifth time, the Court is called upon to issue
substantive rulings in the securities class action alleging that
Tivity intentionally failed to disclose that one of its two largest
customers, United Health Care ("UHC"), intended to offer fitness
and health improvement programs that would directly compete with
Tivity's flagship "SilverSneakers" program.

The first substantive ruling was in response to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, wherein the Court found that the Complaint met
or exceeded the heightened pleading standards mandated by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and rejected the
Defendants' assertion that they were entitled to shelter under the
safe harbor provision of that Act based upon forward-looking
statements.

The second was in response to the Defendants' Motion to Reconsider
and its assertion (among other things) that the Court overlooked
controlling Sixth Circuit authority.  In fact, the Court not only
cited, but actually quoted the supposedly overlooked authority for
the precise proposition advanced by the Defendants.

The third was in response to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class in which the Court found that the four requirements for
certification -- numerousity, commonality, typicality, and adequate
representation -- were met for a class consisting of "all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tivity common stock between March
6, 2017 and Nov. 6, 2017, inclusive."

Now before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to Decertify the
Class and their Motion for Summary Judgment).  Both Motions have
been exhaustively briefed by the parties.  Indeed, those filings
and the documents attached thereto run over 5,000 pages, no doubt
with substantial duplication.

Motion to Decertify

The Defendants initially challenged class certification on the
grounds that the Plaintiff could not satisfy the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) and (4), and that, even he
could, certification was inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) because
common issues would not predominate over individualized ones.

More specifically, it argued that the Plaintiff could not show that
reliance could be proven on a classwide basis because (a) the
information that the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
misrepresented or concealed was publicly available long before the
November 6, 2017 press release that the Plaintiff alleges revealed
this information to investors; and (2) the Plaintiff could not rely
on either the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance
recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), or on
the presumption for cases of omission recognized in Affiliated Ute
Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). (Doc. No. 93 at
2-3).

In a lengthy Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court rejected each
of the Defendant's arguments.  Specifically, as it related to the
issue of reliance and predominance, the Court found that the
presumption announced in Basic was appropriate because Tivity stock
traded in an efficient market and Tivity "presented no proof that
any investor knew, or likely would have known, about UHC's entry
into the market prior to the corrective disclosure."

Dissatisfied with the Court's ruling, Tivity filed a petition for
permission to appeal under Rule 23(f).  In doing so, it argued that
"it rebutted the presumption of reliance by showing that
information revealing the alleged fraud was within the public
domain prior to the corrective disclosure and that some investors
were likely aware of such information during the putative class
period."  The Sixth Circuit denied permission to appeal, but
observed that "they trust that the district court will attentively
resolve the Defendants' concerns about the class members' reliance
on the allegedly fraudulent statements in deciding whether to
decertify the class or certify subclasses, as appropriate."  With
that as the lead sentence in its supporting Memorandum, Tivity
requests that the Court decertifies the class.

Judge Crenshaw opines that the evidence discussed so far is
insufficient for the Court to conclude that investors knew, or
reasonably should have known, that UHC intended to enter into the
SilverSneakers market before that information became public
knowledge by way of the UHC's press releases.  The evidence on
which Tivity relies calls for speculation, and the Sixth Circuit
has stated that is not enough.

In an effort to get beyond speculation, Tivity points to three
other items that it claims show investors actually knew of UHC's
intended entry into the market prior to the press releases.  The
Judge rejects them all.  First, the efficacy of the evidence in
terms of the propriety of class certification is questionable
because Leonard Green did not purchase Tivity common stock during
the class period and is therefore not a member of the class.
Second, Holland could not identify a single investor or class
member who raised questions about UHC.  And, he could not say
whether the supposed knowledge related to UHC having already
replaced SilverSneakers in New Jersey and Washington State, or
whether the investors (whoever they were) were asking Tivity about
whether UCH was planning to offer Optum Fitness Advantage in
additional states in 2018.  Third, the Plaintiff's expert Chad
Coffman's deposition testimony is no more enlightening on the issue
of investor knowledge than is Holland's email.

For these reasons, Judge Crenshaw will not decertify the class and
the Defendants' Motion will be denied.

Motion for Summary Judgment

To succeed on claims under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, the
plaintiff must prove six elements: "(1) a material
misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a
connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the
purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the
misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation."  The Defendants argue that a trial is unnecessary
because he Plaintiff cannot prove the first two elements --
materiality and scienter. They also argue that Tramuto's statements
about the UCH contract were objectively true.

Given the standards governing summary judgment and the applicable
substantive law, Judge Crenshaw disagrees.  He holds that the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment fails on the basics, both
procedurally and substantively.  Procedurally, the basic facts are
relatively undisputed, but the Defendants have not shown they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those facts.
Substantively, Basic teaches that "materiality depends on the
significance the reasonable investor would place on the withheld or
misrepresented information," this is generally a "fact-specific
inquiry," and the "fundamental purpose" underlying the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 was to "implement a 'philosophy of full
disclosure.'"  A jury could find that the omissions related to UHC
were material to a reasonable investor, and that the Defendants
knowingly withheld that information with a culpable state of mind.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crenshaw denied both the
Defendants' Motion to Decertify Class and their Motion for Summary
Judgment.  An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/9ph87n2e from Leagle.com.


TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action suit
initiated by Eric Weiner, is currently set for trial on May 18,
2021.  

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3,
2017.  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and
misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press
Release.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018,
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.   

The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019
and the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019.

On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.

On July 23, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit denied the Company's application for permission to appeal
the class certification ruling.  

The Company filed a motion to decertify the class and a motion for
summary judgment on December 11, 2020.  

The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TODD GREINER: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under AWPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Obdulia Rodriguez and Maria Valenzuela v. TODD GREINER FARMS
PACKING, LLC (D/B/A TODD GREINER FARMS), and SARAH GREINER, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00227 (W.D. Mich., March 9, 2020) seek to recover their
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre-judgment
interest, other damages to make them whole, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Th Plaintiffs filed this case pursuant to Agricultural Worker
Protection Act and intentional tort claims as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1),
23(b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all migrant or
seasonal agricultural workers employed by Defendants at their
Jackson Facility who worked in the packing and sorting warehouse
during the 2019 asparagus season.

In 2019, the Plaintiffs, along with over 200 farmworkers, worked
for Todd Greiner Farms, sorting, and packing asparagus to be
consumed by households throughout Michigan and around the country.
During long and strenuous hours of work, the Defendants exposed
Plaintiffs and over 200 workers to known pesticides and hazardous
chemicals, in violation of state and federal health and safety
laws. The Defendants ignored the workers' complaints regarding
their symptoms, which included headaches, dizziness, itchy throats,
stinging and watery eyes, and for the Plaintiff Rodriguez, loss of
consciousness requiring emergency medical care. The Defendants
misled Plaintiffs and the other workers into believing that they
were experiencing a “virus” instead of a reaction to widescale
chemical exposure, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the other workers on the asparagus packing line
worked six to seven days a week, 12 hours a day, to meet Greiner
Defendants' demand. The Plaintiffs stood on the packing line,
performing the same motion repeatedly for countless hours. They
were given minimal breaks even when their workday stretched beyond
twelve hours and were often left unable to use the bathroom, as the
Defendants only provided access to four bathrooms for over 200
packing warehouse employees, added the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diana E. Marin, Esq.
          Anna M. Hill, Esq.
          Susan Reed, Esq.
          MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
          15 S Washington Street, Suite 201
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197
          Telephone: (734) 239-6863
          Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
          E-mail: dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org
                  ahill@michiganimmigrant.org
                  susanree@michiganimmigrant.org

               - and -

          John Philo, Esq.
          Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Ave, 2nd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

TOM'S OF MAINE: Sabatano Sues Over Deceptive Toothpaste Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOM SABATANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOM'S OF MAINE, INC. and COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY,
Case No. 7:21-cv-01921 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021) is a class action
alleging violations of state statutory law and common law seeking
to recover compensatory and statutory damages, treble or punitive
damages as available, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The suit is a consumer class action against TOM's, an oral care
company, and its parent company, Colgate, for their false
advertising, unfair and deceptive marketing practices, and
materially misleading claims and omissions they employed and
disseminated in connection with the sale of their line of
toothpastes containing activated charcoal.

Activated charcoal is highly porous and has adsorptive qualities
that can be useful in certain contexts. In recent years, health and
beauty products containing activated charcoal have become a
consumer sensation. Opportunistic marketers, celebrities and social
media influencers tout a variety of activated charcoal products for
purported detoxifying properties and other enhanced wellbeing and
health benefits. Consumers have been willing to pay a premium for
these charcoal products based on these purported benefits.

In 2006, Colgate-Palmolive purchased TOM's of Maine. TOM's is a
brand name and manufacturing company of purportedly "natural"
personal care products, including oral care products such as
toothpastes and mouth washes.

As a direct and proximate result of TOM's' alleged
misrepresentations, material omissions and deceptive practices in
its advertising and labeling, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated have suffered actual injuries from their purchase of one
or more of the Charcoal Toothpastes, and did not receive the full
value of their purchase. TOM's successfully induced the Plaintiff
and the putative class members to purchase the Charcoal Toothpastes
that cannot effectively perform gentle "whitening" functions as
represented by TOM's and are not safe for enamel and everyday use
as represented.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd, Suite 209
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

TRAVIS CREDIT: Order in Stoutt Certified for Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWNTEL STOUTT, Plaintiff v. TRAVIS CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01280 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William
B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants the Defendant's motion to certify the Court's
prior order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings for
interlocutory appeal.

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Stoutt claims that the
Defendant violated Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), which prohibits the use
of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to call cell
phones.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used an ATDS to
call her cell phone number at least 18 times between Jan. 24, 2019,
and Feb. 26, 2020.

On Oct. 26, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings arguing that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent
decision Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants,
Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAPC"), the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's TCPA claim.

The Court denied the Defendant's motion on Jan. 12, 2021,
concluding that because the Supreme court in AAPC had expressly
severed the government debt exception from the remainder of the
statute, "holding the entire robocall ban to be ineffective as to
calls made between 2015 and 2020 would improperly construe AAPC as
having invalidated the entirety of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii),
rather than just the government-debt exception, and thus would
undermine the Court's central purpose in severing the statute."
Accordingly, it concluded that it has subject matter jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' TCPA claim.

The Defendant now moves to certify the Court's denial of its motion
for judgment on the pleadings for interlocutory appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

Judge Shubb explains that a district court may certify an order
that is not otherwise appealable when the order (1) involves a
controlling question of law, (2) as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion, and (3) where immediate appeal
may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

All three factors are met in the case.  First, a case presents a
controlling question of law if the appellant's success on appeal
would result in dismissal of the case.  Second, a substantial
ground for difference of opinion exists "where novel and difficult
questions of first impression are presented."  Third, a party
seeking interlocutory certification must show that an immediate
appeal may 'materially advance,' rather than impede or delay,
ultimate termination of the litigation."  Courts apply pragmatic
considerations to determine whether certifying non-final orders
will materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.

The Defendant argues that certifying the case for appeal would
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation
because an appeal would avoid expenditure of significant time and
resources if the Ninth Circuit ultimately determines that federal
jurisdiction does not exist.  It also points out that guidance from
the Ninth Circuit on this issue would aid other courts and
litigants in the large number of TCPA cases that are currently
pending.

The Plaintiff counters that an interlocutory appeal would delay
discovery, class certification, and trial because of the stay that
would accompany such an order.  Specifically, she warns that she
would be particularly prejudiced by a stay of discovery because
many telecommunications companies do not keep records of telephone
activity longer than four years, and thus a stay would decrease the
chances that she could successfully recover telephone records that
would form the proof of violative calls at issue in the case.

Judge Shubb agrees with the Defendant that certifying its prior
order for interlocutory appeal would materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation by potentially avoiding the
expenditure of time and resources on a matter that the court may
not have the power to decide.  He therefore grants the Defendant's
motion to certify an interlocutory appeal.

However, the Judge holds that authorization of an interlocutory
appeal does not necessarily require a stay all proceedings in the
Court.  To account for the Plaintiff's concern that evidence may be
destroyed or lost while the matter is pending in the Court of
Appeals, the Judge permits discovery to continue for the limited
purpose of preserving telecommunications records necessary to prove
the elements of the Plaintiff's claim as set out in her operative
complaint.

The Plaintiff will have the burden of requesting such limited
discovery.  If there is any dispute as to whether specific
discovery requests fall within the limited exception of preserving
records necessary to prove her case, such disputes will be resolved
by the assigned magistrate judge.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Shubb grants the Defendant's
motion to certify the Court's prior order denying its motion for
judgment on the pleadings for interlocutory appeal.  All
proceedings in the matter are stayed, subject to the limited
discovery exception described.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/53w89cxp from Leagle.com.


TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT: Two Classes Certified in MacMann Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACI L. MacMANN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., and TROPICANA ST. LOUIS, LLC, D/B/A LUMIERE PLACE CASINO &
HOTELS, Defendants, Case No. 4:19 CV 404 RWS (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class
certification.

Plaintiff MacMann is a former employee of Tropicana St. Louis
(doing business as Lumiere).  She worked as a table games dealer
and is bringing the action alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated. This case was
originally brought against Tropicana Entertainment Inc. and
Tropicana St. Louis, but the national Defendant was dismissed on
Aug. 6, 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that Lumiere violated federal and state
minimum wage laws by failing to properly notify her and similarly
situated employees about its use of a tip credit, incorrectly
calculating their overtime rates, requiring them to pay for their
own Missouri gaming license, and inappropriately rounding their
time.  She filed the action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees on March 3, 2019.  The parties then
conducted limited discovery on conditional and class certification
issues.

The Plaintiff filed her motion for class and conditional
certification on Sept. 25, 2020, which was fully briefed in early
November, seeking to certify four FLSA collectives and three
classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

      a. The Plaintiff moves to certify the Tip Credit Notice
Collective defined as "all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere
who were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than $7.25 per
hour and for whom a tip credit was claimed at any time from three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present."

      b. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the Gaming License
Deduction Collective consisting of "all hourly non-exempt employees
at Lumiere who were paid a direct cash wage equal to or less than
$7.25 per hour and had a gaming license fee deducted from their
wages (or that they paid directly to the Missouri Gaming
Commission) at any time from three years prior to the filing of the
Complaint to the present.

      c. The Plaintiff further seeks to certify the Miscalculated
Regular Rate Collective defined as "all hourly, non-exempt
employees at Lumiere who were paid a direct hourly wage that was
less than $7.25 per hour and worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to
present."

      d. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the Timeclock Rounding
Collective consisting of "all hourly, non-exempt employees at
Lumiere who clocked out using the Kronos or ADP Timesaver
timekeeping software at any time from three years prior to the
filing of the Complaint to the present."

A hearing was then held over the course of two days, Nov. 24, 2020,
and Dec. 14, 2020.  The parties provided additional briefing after
the hearing, with the final briefs filed on Feb. 3, 2021.

Tip Credit Notice Collective

The Plaintiff claims the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to
provide proper notice to tipped employees regarding the tip credit
Defendant claimed.  The Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not
similarly situated to union employees.

Judge Sippel finds that while it is clear that the Defendant's lack
of uniform tip-credit notice may have resulted in employees across
the casino failing to receive adequate notice, the Plaintiff has
not shown that she is similarly situated to employees in other
departments since the information received at departmental
orientation would not have been the same.  However, although he
agrees with the Defendant that the agreement contains provisions
related to attendance that may effect the time-clock rounding
claim, the Judge does not believe it contains any provisions that
impact this claim, the gaming license claim, or the overtime rate
claims.  Finally, the CBA at issue focuses its grievance procedure
and arbitration provisions on working conditions, not wages.  For
these reasons, the Judge conditionally certifies the tip credit
notice collective, but only with respect to table games dealers.

MMWL Gaming License Deduction Class

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
requiring minimum wage and subminimum wage employees to pay for
their own Missouri Gaming Licenses.  She argues that deducting the
gaming license fee from employees pay reduces their pay below
minimum wage in violation of FLSA.  The Defendant argues there is
no uniform deduction policy because only individuals who authorize
Lumiere to pay the gaming license fee on their behalf have the fee
deducted from their pay.

Judge Sippel notes that although final determination of damages
would require individual inquiries into the Plaintiffs' salaries
when the gaming license fee was paid, it is not sufficient to
overcome class certification.  The class definition limits the
class to individuals who were making a direct hourly minimum wage.
Therefore, any deduction would reduce their salaries below minimum
wage and no individual inquiry would be required to determine
whether Defendants are liable, just the extent of damage.
Therefore, the Judge cetifies this class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

MMWL Miscalculated Regular Rate Class

The Plaintiff argues that the class is similarly situated because a
single formula was used to calculate the overtime rate for all
tipped employees at Lumiere.  The Defendants argue that collective
action is inappropriate because the Court would have to analyze
each class member's pay stubs to determine whether such employees
worked overtime and whether the rate for the overtime was properly
compensated.

As Judge Sippel noted, the need for individualized damages
inquiries does not defeat class certification.  The Defendant has
not indicated that the overtime rate calculations vary across
departments or individuals, just that each individuals' records
will have to be reviewed to determine if they worked overtime, the
amount of time, and the rate used.  These issues go to damages.
Therefore, the Judge certifies this class.

MMWL Timeclock Rounding Class

The Plaintiff also contends that thhe Defendant's timeclock
rounding system unlawfully deprives employees of pay.  The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that
she is similarly situated to the proposed collective because she
has failed to show the attendance policy is uniformly enforced or
that over a period of time the policy resulted in the systematic
underpayment of employees.

Because of the higher standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Judge
Sippel does not certify this class.  He says the MMWL Timeclock
Rounding Class does not meet the predominance requirement.  The
Plaintiff would need to show that class members were engaged in
compensable work during the uncompensated time, which overwhelms
the common question of whether the rounding policy impermissibly
favors Defendant.  Under the MMWL, which is interpreted in
accordance with FLSA, liability is predicated on failure to pay for
compensable work.  Whether the activities completed during the
rounded time are compensable is therefore a critical part of the
case.  Therefore, it fails to meet the higher standard necessary
for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and the Judge denies
the Plaintiff's motion to certify this class.

Accordingly, Judge Sippel granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for class and conditional certification as
discussed in his Order.  The parties will file a joint proposed
form of notice for the Court's consideration, consistent with the
Order, within 28 days of the date of the Order.  If the parties
cannot agree on a joint proposed form of notice after good faith
efforts, then they will file their own proposed forms of notice,
each with a brief memorandum setting out the areas of disagreement
and support for their position, for the Court's consideration.  The
Defendants must produce to the Plaintiff, in a readable electronic
data file, the names, dates of service, last known mailing
addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers of all potential
class members within 21 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53xnt8r from Leagle.com.


TRUE INSTALL: Jackson Bid for Conditional Class Certification OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REUBEN JACKSON v. TRUE
INSTALL LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02256-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Jon A. York entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion
for conditional class certification.

Accordingly, Jackson is hereby authorized to:

   -- proceed as a collective action for unpaid overtime
violations
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of
      similarly situated construction and maintenance workers
      employed by Defendant from April 2, 2017, to present;

   -- send the notice and consent forms accompanying his motion to

      all potential class members, and to send a reminder notice 45

      days prior to the notice-period deadline.

The court further grants the Plaintiff's request to toll the
statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this
action was filed, and for the opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms to
be deemed filed on the date they are postmarked.

True Install is ordered to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel,
within 14 days from the entry of this order, a list containing the
names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, and phone
numbers for all construction and maintenance personnel employed by
Defendant since April 2, 2017.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u9ShSv at no extra charge.[CC]

TRUSTCO BANK: Lamoureux Sues Over Improper Banking Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT N. LAMOUREUX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTCO BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS
BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00336-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Mar. 24,
2021) alleges that the Defendant wrongfully charged the Plaintiff
and the Class members fees related to their checking accounts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class seek
monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to the
Defendant's policy and practice to maximize the fees it imposes on
members. This conduct includes assessing an overdraft fee on
transactions when, by the Defendant's own calculations, there was
enough available money in the checking account to cover the
transaction at issue when authorized; and assessing more than one
Non-Sufficient Funds Fees on the same item. The charging of such
fees allegedly breaches the Defendant's contracts with its members,
who include the Plaintiff and the members of the Class.

TrustCo Bank Corp NY operates a bank holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides general banking services to
individuals, partnerships, and corporations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Cherundolo, Esq.
          J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC  
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone (315) 449-9500
          Facsimile (315) 449-9804
          E-mail: jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com
                  plannon@cherundololawfirm.com

               -and-

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  jeff@kicklawfirm.com

               -and-

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

               -and-

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Bid to Consolidate IPO Related Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motions to
consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel the
initial public offering ("IPO") related class action suits are
pending.

The Company and certain of its directors and officers at the time
of its IPO were named as defendants in four putative shareholder
class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York on (1) February 26, 2020, captioned Matt Primozich v.
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 651287/2020
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.), (2) May 28, 2020, captioned Allen v. Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 652118/2020 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cnty.), (3) June 15, 2020, captioned Avi Shmuely v. Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 652475/2020 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cnty.), and (4) July 1, 2020 captioned Michael Roche v. Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 652833/2020 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cnty.).

In addition to naming the Company and Individual Defendants as
defendants, the Roche Action names the underwriters in the IPO as
defendants. On November 17, 2020 plaintiffs in the Primozich Action
and Allen Action filed amended complaints.

In the Tufin State Actions, the plaintiffs, seeking to represent a
class of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's ordinary
shares issued in connection with the Company's April IPO, allege
that the (1) the defendants made material misstatements or failed
to disclose material information in the IPO Offering Documents,
thereby allegedly violating Section 11 of the Securities Act and
(2) the Individual Defendants were "control persons" of the Company
by virtue of their positions, and thereby are allegedly liable
under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Roche Action also
asserts a claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
alleging that defendants issued, caused to be issued, and/or signed
the IPO Offering Documents in connection with issuance of stock to
shareholders in the IPO.

The plaintiffs have filed various motions to consolidate and
appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the Tufin State
Actions, and such motions have been fully briefed since August 4,
2020; however, as of February 6, 2021, an order on the motions had
not yet been entered.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. is a security policy management
company specializing in the automation of security policy changes
across hybrid platforms while improving security and compliance.
The company is located in Tel Aviv, Israel.

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Consolidated IPO Related Suit in New York Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the New York
federal court entered an order consolidating the Tufin Federal
Actions under Master File No. 1:20-cv-05646, appointing Mark Henry
as lead plaintiff, and approving Henry's selection of lead counsel.


Two federal class actions were also filed in the Southern District
of New York: (1) the matter captioned Matthew Ellison v. Tufin
Software Technologies Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05646
(S.D.N.Y.) was filed on July 21, 2020 and names the company, the
Individual Defendants, the initial public offering (IPO)
Underwriter Defendants, and certain underwriters in the secondary
public offering as defendants and (2) the matter captioned
Michaelson v. Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:
20-cv-06290 (S.D.N.Y.) was filed on August 10, 2020 and names us
and the Individual Defendants as defendants.

The Tufin Federal Actions were brought on behalf of all persons or
entities, who purchased stock in our April 2019 IPO and/or December
2019 secondary public offering ("SPO"), pursuant to and/or
traceable to the alleged misleading IPO Offering Documents or SPO
Offering Documents, and assert violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) (against all defendants) and Section 15 (against
Individual Defendants) of the Securities Act.

On October 19, 2020, the New York federal court entered an order
consolidating the Tufin Federal Actions under Master File No.
1:20-cv-05646, appointing Mark Henry as lead plaintiff, and
approving Henry's selection of lead counsel.

On February 4, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on alleged false or
misleading statements or omissions in the Registration Statement
issued in connection with our April IPO.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint names the company and the
Individual Defendants as Defendants.

Defendants have 60 days from the filing of the Consolidated Amended
Complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. is a security policy management
company specializing in the automation of security policy changes
across hybrid platforms while improving security and compliance.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: First Circuit Dismisses Appeal in Capriole Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN CAPRIOLE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 20-1386
(1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
dismisses the appeal concerning the Massachusetts district court's
denial of Capriole's first preliminary injunction motion and
whether the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

Uber owns a mobile phone application through which customers can
request rides from one place to another.  When a customer requests
a ride, the app notifies a nearby Uber driver and the driver may
accept or decline the request.  If a driver declines the request,
it is offered to another driver.  The driver who accepts the
request meets the customer at his or her location.  The price of
the ride is set by Uber and passengers do not select their
drivers.

When drivers sign up for the Uber app, they must accept the
"Technology Services Agreement" ("TSA"), which governs the
relationship between Uber and its drivers.  The TSA includes an
arbitration agreement which states that disputes arising out of the
TSA may be resolved "only by an arbitrator through final and
binding arbitration on an individual basis only."  Drivers may opt
out of the Arbitration Provision within thirty days after signing
up.

Capriole signed up to be a driver on March 27, 2016.  He did not
opt out of the Arbitration Provision.

On Sept. 12, 2019, Capriole filed a federal complaint against Uber
and its CEO alleging that Uber misclassified its drivers as
independent contractors instead of employees in violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148B.  He
argued that drivers must be classified as employees and paid and
granted benefits as employees under Massachusetts law.

A week later, on Sept. 19, 2019, Capriole filed a motion to
preliminarily enjoin Uber from continuing to classify Uber drivers
as independent contractors.  Capriole made several arguments as to
why class-wide preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate
despite the Arbitration Provision.  First, as to the Arbitration
Provision, Capriole argued that it was unenforceable because Uber
drivers are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and
Massachusetts law does not allow enforcement of arbitration clauses
containing class action waivers where they are not covered by the
FAA.  He also argued that even if his claims had to be arbitrated
under the Arbitration Provision, the district court had the power
to issue preliminary injunctive relief to protect him while the
arbitration was ongoing.

Second, as to preliminary injunctive relief, Capriole argued he
sought "public" injunctive relief, and under California law
"agreements to arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief under
certain statutes are not enforceable," citing McGill v. Citibank,
N.A., 393 P.3d 85, 90 (Cal. 2017).  He argued that the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would follow California law on
this point.

On Oct. 17, 2019, Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration and a
motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California
on the grounds that a parallel misclassification suit was ongoing
in California and the TSA contained a forum selection clause
specifying that any claims not arbitrated would be litigated in the
Northern District of California.  On March 19, 2020, Capriole filed
an amended complaint adding a new claim that Uber drivers were not
being given paid sick leave in violation of the Massachusetts
Earned Sick Time Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148C.

On March 20, 2020, the district court denied the pending motion for
a preliminary injunction on the ground that Capriole had not made a
showing of irreparable harm.  It noted that Capriole had put in "no
evidence" in support of his claims that drivers will suffer
irreparable harm or cannot afford basic necessities.  As to the
claim for public injunctive relief, the district court concluded
that the Massachusetts Wage Act did not authorize private
plaintiffs to seek public injunctive relief.  Further, the court
held that Capriole was not requesting a public injunction because
"relief that has the primary purpose or effect of redressing or
preventing injury to an individual plaintiff -- or to a group of
individuals similarly situated to the plaintiff -- does not
constitute public injunctive relief."  Capriole filed a timely
notice of appeal on March 30, 2020.

On March 23, 2020, Capriole filed a second motion for preliminary
injunction based on his amended complaint.  On March 31, the
district court granted Uber's motion to transfer the case to the
Northern District of California.  The district court did not
resolve the motion to compel arbitration or the second preliminary
injunction motion before the transfer.

The next day, on April 1, 2020, the Northern District of California
entered the case on its docket.  On May 14, the Northern District
of California district court granted Uber's motion to compel
arbitration and denied Capriole's second motion for preliminary
injunction.  On May 24, it dismissed the case and entered final
judgment.  Capriole appealed the decision of the Northern District
of California and the Ninth Circuit heard argument on Oct. 16,
2020.

Uber argues that the appeal became moot when the California
district court entered final judgment compelling arbitration and
dismissing the case.

The appeal concerns only the Massachusetts district court's denial
of Capriole's first preliminary injunction motion and whether the
First Circuit has jurisdiction over the appeal.

The First Circuit agrees with Uber that upon entry of the judgment
of dismissal of Capriole's suit, the denial in Massachusetts of the
first preliminary injunction merged with the California court's
final judgment.  As a result, the Circuit Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

The arguments to the contrary fail, it holds.  Capriole first
argues that Uber conceded the First Circuit had retained
jurisdiction of the appeal after the case was transferred.  He
cites only one case, Matrix Group Ltd. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods
Co., 378 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 2004), to argue that a court of
appeals does not lose jurisdiction over the appeal of a preliminary
injunction motion when the underlying case is transferred.
Capriole misapplies Matrix Group Ltd., which is easily
distinguishable and which concerned an entirely different factual
scenario.  It was the entry of final judgment, not the transfer,
that mooted this appeal.

Capriole next argues that the transfer "severed" the first request
for a preliminary injunction and thus that the denial of the
preliminary injunction motion did not merge with the final
judgment.  But a motion for a preliminary injunction is not a
separate claim that can be severed from the underlying claim.

Capriole last argues that his appeal of the denial of his request
for a preliminary injunction cannot be moot because there is "still
a case and controversy, as Uber drivers in Massachusetts remain
misclassified, and effective relief may still be provided upon
resolution of the Appeal."  The First Circuit holds that this
argument fails.  It says, the appeal is moot because the Court
cannot provide relief as to the preliminary injunction motion, not
because the underlying dispute has been resolved.

The final judgment in California means that the arbitrator, not the
First Circuit or another court, is to decide any claim for relief
in the case unless and only if the Ninth Circuit reverses.  For
these reasons, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/t3uzk47v from Leagle.com.

Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- with whom Adelaide H.
Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
were on briefs for appellant.

Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- with whom Blaine
H. Evanson -- bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- Heather Richardson
hrichardson@gibsondunn.com -- Jillian N. London, Samuel Eckman, and
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP were on briefs for appellees.

James W. Simpson, Jr. -- james@simpsonlawoffices.com -- and Law
Offices of James W. Simpson, Jr., P.C. on brief for Boston
Independent Drivers Guild, Gig Workers Rising, Mobile Workers
Alliance, Rideshare Drivers United, and We Drive Progress, amici
curiae.


UBS GROUP: Bid to Nix Government Bonds-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action related to Government bonds, is
pending.

Putative class actions have been filed since 2015 in US federal
courts against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who
participated in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007.

A consolidated complaint was filed in 2017 in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging that the banks
colluded with respect to, and manipulated prices of, US Treasury
securities sold at auction and in the secondary market and
asserting claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust
enrichment.

Defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint are
pending.

Similar class actions have been filed concerning European
government bonds and other government bonds.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal
& Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank.


UBS GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LIBOR Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the putative class
action suit related to USD LIBOR instruments, is pending.

In January 2019, a putative class action was filed in the District
Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS and
numerous other banks on behalf of US residents who, since 1
February 2014, directly transacted with a defendant bank in USD
London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) instruments.

The complaint asserts antitrust claims. The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint in August 2019.

On 26 March 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

In August 2020, an individual action was filed in the Northern
District of California against UBS and numerous other banks
alleging that the defendants conspired to fix the interest rate
used as the basis for loans to consumers by jointly setting the USD
LIBOR rate and monopolized the market for LIBOR-based consumer
loans and credit cards.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal
& Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank.

UBS GROUP: Settlement in Foreign Currency Suits  Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and 11 other banks
have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the class
action for a total of USD 10 million and the court approved the
settlement in November 2020.

Putative class actions have been filed since 2013 in US federal
courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on
behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign
currency transactions with any of the defendant banks.

UBS has resolved US federal court class actions relating to foreign
currency transactions with the defendant banks and persons who
transacted in foreign exchange futures contracts and options on
such futures under a settlement agreement that provides for UBS to
pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the
settlement classes.

Certain class members have excluded themselves from that settlement
and have filed individual actions in US and English courts against
UBS and other banks, alleging violations of US and European
competition laws and unjust enrichment.

In 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court against
UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of persons and businesses in
the US who directly purchased foreign currency from the defendants
and alleged co-conspirators for their own end use. In March 2017,
the court granted UBS's (and the other banks') motions to dismiss
the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August
2017.

In March 2018, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss
the amended complaint.

In 2017, two putative class actions were filed in federal court in
New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of persons
and entities who had indirectly purchased foreign exchange
instruments from a defendant or co-conspirator in the US, and a
consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017.

In March 2018, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint. In
October 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to
file an amended complaint.

UBS and 11 other banks have reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the class action for a total of USD 10
million. The court approved the settlement in November 2020.

UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five
divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal
& Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank.

UNILEVER UNITED: Lipetz Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBYN LIPETZ and SHANNON KEENER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED
STATES, INC., and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE
USA, Case No. 2:20-cv-06350, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01696 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of contract/common law warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of state
consumer fraud acts and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law by failing to disclose to consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, about the risks and dangers of using the
TRESemme Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and the TRESemme Keratin
Smooth Color Shampoo.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care
products based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
is a manufacturer of personal care products, with its principal
place of business in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

                 - and –

         Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
         Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
         KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
         747 Chestnut Ridge Road
         Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
         Telephone: (845) 356-257
         Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
         E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                 ggraifman@kgglaw.com

                 - and –

         Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
         SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
         Land Title Building
         100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1910
         Philadelphia, PA 19110
         Telephone: (267) 328-5245
         Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
         E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Harper T. Segui, Esq.
         Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 harper@whitfieldbryson.com
                 caroline@whitfieldbryson.com

UNION PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Fleury BIPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID FLEURY, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00390
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies Union
Pacific's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

Mr. Fleury filed a putative class action against Union Pacific,
alleging that Union Pacific violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. ("BIPA").

Union Pacific operates a network of railroads in North America that
includes facilities located in Illinois.  For a certain period of
time, including throughout 2019, Fleury worked as a truck driver,
and as part of his job, he visited rail yards in Illinois owned and
operated by Union Pacific.  Union Pacific required Fleury to scan
his "biometric identifiers and/or biometric information" into
certain "identity verification kiosks" when Fleury visited Union
Pacific's facilities.  Through these kiosks, Union Pacific
collected, captured, and stored biometric identifiers and biometric
information from Fleury and others that visited Union Pacific
facilities.

Union Pacific collected and stored the biometric information via
these kiosks without informing Fleury or others in writing that it
was doing so, and it failed to get written consent from Fleury or
others before collecting and storing their biometric information.
Union Pacific further failed to provide Fleury or others with
written disclosures describing the specific purpose and length of
time for which their biometric information was being collected and
stored.  Finally, Union Pacific also transmitted the biometric
information it collected from Fleury and others to unknown third
parties without consent.

Mr. Fleury acknowledges that, after he filed his lawsuit, Union
Pacific added a "disclosure and consent" virtual form to its kiosks
that Fleury and others use.  He acknowledged and signed off on the
disclosure and consent form in June 2020.

Mr. Fleury claims that, although he does not know whether Union
Pacific's recent efforts to add notice and consent forms now bring
it into compliance with BIPA, Union Pacific's past conduct has
nevertheless violated BIPA in multiple ways.

Union Pacific now moves to dismiss Fleury's First Amended
Complaint, arguing that Fleury's BIPA claim is preempted by both
the Federal Railroad Safety Act and the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act and that Fleury fails to state a claim
because he consented to the collection of his biometric
information.

Union Pacific offers three bases to dismiss Fleury's First Amended
Complaint.  It argues two separate federal statutes preempt
Fleury's BIPA claim.  Union Pacific also argues Fleury fails to
state a BIPA claim because he consented to Union Pacific's
collection and use of his biometric information.

Union Pacific argues Fleury's BIPA claim is preempted by either the
Federal Railroad Safety Act ("FRSA") or the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA").  It argues the FRSA preempts
Fleury's BIPA claim here because the Department of Homeland
Security ("DHS") has promulgated certain regulations and standards
that, taken together, cover the subject of using biometric
information as a security measure to access railroad facilities.
It argues that Fleury's BIPA claim is both categorically preempted
and preempted by ICCTA as applied.

Judge Alonso disagrees.  To begin with, the Judge views Union
Pacific's argument as resting on certain assumptions that are
premature at this stage.  He finds that the standards and
regulations raised by Union Pacific cannot act to preempt Fleury's
BIPA claim.  Union Pacific cites standards that merely mention,
quite briefly, the use of biometric devices for security; it
presents nothing indicating these standards reflect consideration
of how to handle biometric information, which again, is the subject
matter of BIPA.  Accordingly, the FRSA does not preempt Fleury's
BIPA claim.

The Judge also disagrees that Fleury's BIPA claim is both
categorically preempted and preempted by ICCTA as applied.
Regarding categorical preemption, Union Pacific fails to show --
and the Judge fails to see how -- BIPA falls into either category
of state action that is preempted per se.  He also disagrees with
Union Pacific that dismissal of Fleury's BIPA claim is appropriate
based upon "as applied" preemption.  Again, even if a state law is
not categorically preempted, it can still be preempted as applied
if it "prevents or unreasonably interferes with railroad
transportation.  The Judge denies Union Pacific's motion to dismiss
based on ICCTA preemption, but Union Pacific is free to renew its
arguments at a later stage.

Finally, Union Pacific argues Fleury fails to state a BIPA claim
because Fleury consented to the collection of his biometric
information.

The Judge need not linger long here because he finds, again, the
current record cannot support Union Pacific's argument.  He holds
that the June 2020 written consent acted to memorialize the initial
consent Fleury provided to Union Pacific at some point, and so,
Union Pacific argues, Fleury fails to allege that Union Pacific
violated BIPA's notice and disclosure requirements of 740 ILCS
14/15(b).

Even assuming whatever initial unwritten understanding or agreement
Fleury had could satisfy the requirements of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), the
June 2020 consent cannot, on its face, act to confirm this initial
understanding.  Nothing in the consent form addresses prior verbal
agreements or understandings of prior collection, use, storage, or
dissemination of the individual's biometric information, and the
Court certainly cannot draw an inference (against Fleury) that the
parties understood the consent forms to retroactively authorize
this. BIPA requires an entity to provide the requisite notice and
obtain consent "before obtaining any fingerprint."  While the June
2020 consent may ultimately limit the damages Fleury can recover or
possibly bar his claim altogether, Union Pacific fails to show
dismissal is appropriate at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alonso denies Defendant Union
Pacific's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 24, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/m5rtn8zk from
Leagle.com.


UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Properly Maintain Aircraft, Schnell Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Schnell v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00683 (D.
Colo. March 5, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated seeking to recover for negligent
infliction of emotional distress on behalf of himself and all other
passengers on board who are similarly situated.

Plaintiff Chad Schnell was a passenger on United Airlines Flight
328 ("UA328") on February 20, 2021, operated by the Defendant
United Airlines, Inc. using a Boeing 777-200 with tail number
N772UA, departing from Denver International Airport.

As a result of United's alleged failure to properly inspect and
maintain its aircraft, one of two engines on this plane
spectacularly failed, scattering pieces of the engine over Colorado
and leaving passengers to a horrifying view of a fire on the wing,
massive turbulence, and an emergency landing predicated by a
well-deserved mayday call from the cockpit.

The 231 passengers on board UA328 were lucky to escape with their
lives, as the flight managed to land with no serious physical
injuries; however, it left these passengers in fear for their life
for nearly 20 minutes as air traffic control and United pilots
hurried to make an emergency landing at the origin airport, causing
foreseeable and severe emotional distress that could have been
avoided had UNITED operated in accordance with federal regulations,
the Plaintiff contends.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at Willis
Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic and
international route network spanning cities large and small across
the United States and all six continents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Corbett, Esq.
          958 N. Western Ave. No. 765
          Hollywood, CA 90029
          Telephone: (310) 684-3870
          Facsimile: (310) 675-7080
          E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com

UNITED STATES: Keough Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KEOUGH AND NANCY
KEOUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and STEVEN MNUCHIN,
Secretary of the Treasury, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:20-cv-10311-DJC (D. Mass), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying a class as follows:

      "All persons who were charged a debt collection fee or
      administrative fee as a result of a judgment by a government

      agency that was not related to a loan issued by an agency of

      the Federal government, which the Defendants calculated as a

      percentage of the debt or other means rather than the actual

      or reasonably estimated actual costs of collection of the
      debt purportedly owed to Defendants;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Kevin and Nancy Keough as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Michael A. Borrelli, Esq. as class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 19,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cDrCHK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
          806 Fox Run
          Middleboro, MA 02346
          Telephone: (781) 983-7983
          E-mail: Lawyer2@earlthlink.net

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Patients Class Certified in Alexander Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCY ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs v. THOMAS B.
MILLER, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:20-cv-00044-GFVT (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, grants the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiffs Alexander, Mary Baughman, Robert Moody, Danny Metts, and
Randall Roach assert that UK Healthcare and the Kentucky Department
of Revenue's billing and collection practices violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide
adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.  The Plaintiffs
argue that their Fourteenth Amendment rights are enforceable
against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and they seek
both a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendants from collecting UK Healthcare debts until class members
are provided constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity
to be heard.

The named Plaintiffs are all former UK Healthcare patients whose
bills were referred to the Department of Revenue for collection.
The Defendants consist of two University of Kentucky officials and
two Department of Revenue officials.  The Defendants are all being
sued in their official capacities and are charged with having
responsibility over UK Healthcare and the Kentucky Department of
Revenue's billing and collection practices.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' debt collection practices
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  They
assert that UK Healthcare uses the following tiered system to
collect former patient debts: (1) UK Healthcare or the Kentucky
Medical Services Foundation, which is the billing arm for UK
Healthcare, attempts to collect debt from patients; (2) if UK
Healthcare is unsuccessful, it refers further collection efforts to
Central Kentucky Management Services; and (3) if CKMS is
unsuccessful, it refers collection to the Department of Revenue for
non-judicial collection remedies such as bank account levies, wage
garnishment, lien placement, and state tax refund offset.

The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants' debt collection process
violates the Fourteenth Amendment because patients do not receive
notice at a "meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" during any
stage in the process of their right to dispute either the existence
or the amount of their debt.

The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants have engaged in
an intentional effort to hold as few hearings as possible and have
in fact tried to conceal patients' hearing rights.  As evidence of
this phenomenon, they point to the fact that although UK Healthcare
debt collectors sent out 63,154 notices between 2013 and 2020, only
65 hearings were requested in total and none have been requested in
the past two years.  During that same time frame, only 17 hearings
were actually held, and only one hearing has been held in the past
five calendar years combined.  As further evidence, the Plaintiffs
point out that Defendant Tammy Watts sent CKMS a letter stating
that the initial CKMS invoice was deficient because it failed to
inform the debtor of his or her appeal rights.  Ms. Watts' letter
stated that the invoice "is deficient in that it does not inform
the debtor of his/her appeal rights."  Despite this warning, the
Plaintiffs allege that neither CKMS nor UK Healthcare have ever
modified their initial invoice sent to former UK Healthcare
patients based on Ms. Watts' letter.

The Defendants disagree with the Plaintiffs' characterization of
the debt collection process.  The Defendants contend that Kentucky
law authorizes debt referral from state universities (of which UK
Healthcare is affiliated) to the Department of Revenue for
collection.  They also argue that the debt collection process,
which is the same one that has been used for years by Kentucky's
public universities and other state agencies, appropriately informs
individuals of how to dispute their medical bills.   They point to
the three-step debt collection process and state that notices are
sent to former UK Healthcare patients at each step.

Further, the Defendants allege that if a debtor does not respond to
notices from CKMS, each debtor receives a final notice to the
debtor's last known address for the following purposes: (1) to
inform the debtor of their right to contest the amount or validity
of their debt by requesting a hearing with a Hearing Officer; (2)
to provide instructions for requesting a hearing; (3) to inform the
debtor of what information to submit to the hearing officer, and
(4) to inform the debtor that if they do not request a hearing or
resolve the matter in some other way, their debt will be referred
to the DOR for collection.

On June 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their first Motion to Certify
Class.  After a period of discovery, they filed an Amended and
Supplemental Motion to Certify Class on Oct. 30, 2020.  Both sides
having fully briefed the matter.

The Plaintiffs have requested the Court certify the following
class: "All UK Healthcare patients whose bills have been or will be
referred by UK Healthcare (or its subsidiaries, including but not
limited to KMSF and CKMS) to the Department of Revenue for
collection and who have not yet satisfied the amount the DOR states
is owed, but excluding the 158 individuals listed in Defendants'
Capilouto and Cox's response to Interrogatory 2 as having requested
a hearing or independent review of their accounts."

The Defendants argue that a portion of the proposed class lacks
standing.  The proposed class includes "all UK Healthcare patients
whose bills have or will be referred by UK Healthcare to the
Department of revenue for collection."  Given the "will be"
language, the Defendants argue that the "will be" portion of the
proposed class lacks standing because "their alleged future injury
is merely speculative."

Because at this stage any Article III issues in the case are
dependent on whether a class is certified, the final determination
of standing will be resolved as informed by the class certification
requirements of Rule 23.  The Court "therefore follows the path"
taken by the Supreme Court, "mindful that Rule 23's requirements
must be interpreted in keeping with Article III constraints, and
with the Rules Enabling Act, which instructs that rules of
procedure will not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive
right.

After conducting a rigorous analysis, Judge Van Tatenhove
determines that class certification is appropriate because all
requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been
established.  Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently
advised, he denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class,
and grants the Plaintiffs' Amended and Supplemental Motion to
Certify Class.

The Judge certifies a class defined as "all UK Healthcare patients
whose bills have been or will be referred by UK Healthcare (or its
subsidiaries, including but not limited to KMSF and CKMS) to the
Department of Revenue for collection and who have not yet satisfied
the amount the DOR states is owed, but excluding the 158
individuals listed in Defendants' Capilouto and Cox's response to
Interrogatory 2 as having requested a hearing or independent review
of their accounts."

Plaintiff Lucy Alexander, Plaintiff Mary Baughman, Plaintiff Robert
Moody, Plaintiff Danny Metts, and Plaintiff Randall Roach will
serve as the class representatives; and Ben Carter, attorney from
the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and Edward P. Krugman and
Claudia Wilner, attorneys from the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice, are appointed as the class council.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/jjbbmufu from
Leagle.com.


US PREMIUM: Continues to Defend Four Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to
defend different four class actions lawsuits.

The Company is a defendant in four class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court, Minnesota District alleging that it
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws.

The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation,
which was filed originally on April 23, 2019, Peterson et al. v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally
on April 26, 2019;

In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed originally on April 26,
2019; and Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company
Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020.

The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards
Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees.

The Company is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed
on January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of
its products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
(the "Labelling Cases").

The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court,
Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the
New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. The
Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, New Mexico District. The plaintiffs in the
Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other relief and attorneys'
fees.

U.S. Premium Beef said, "The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in the Antitrust Cases and the Labelling
Cases and intends to defend these cases vigorously. There can be no
assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the
impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows."

U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by-products, and consumer-ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.

USAA CASUALTY: Cain Suit Removed From State Court to D. Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTER CAIN, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, DOES 1 through 10, Case No. A-21-829884-C (Filed
Feb. 23, 2021), was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on March 9, 2021.

The District Court for the District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00400-RFB-BNW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a
"significant drop in driving, collision, and automobile insurance
claims [that] will almost certainly continue for the foreseeable
future, and for as long as the COVID-19 crisis continues." The
Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, "USAA has and will incur
significantly less expenses in claim payments than what was
anticipated when the premium was charged," and "has charged and
collected an excessive premium to its insureds in the past and into
the future."

USAA operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS
          6385 South Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600
          Las Vegas, NV 89118
          Telephone: (702) 693-1712
          Facsimile: (702) 893-3789
          E-mail: Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          M. Scott Incerto, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-5201
          Facsimile: (512) 536-4598
          E-mail: scott.incerto@nortonrosefulbright.com

VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Valaris PLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the class action suit initiated
by Xiaoyuan Zhang, remains stayed.

On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris
shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris
shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The
complaint cites general statements in press releases and SEC
filings and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements or failed to disclose material information regarding the
performance of our ultra-deepwater segment, among other things.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31,
2019.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

The case has now been stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy
filing, with the exception that lead plaintiff may continue efforts
to serve certain defendants and may file an amended complaint.

At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters
or the extent of any resulting liability.

Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The
Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides
drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company
is based in London, England.

VALLEY FORGE: JMR Holdings Slams Denied Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
JMR Holdings, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Valley Forge Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00839 (E.D. Pa., February 24, 2021),
seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at
the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief
from breach of contract.

JMR Holdings operates a photography business in New York. It
purchased all-risk commercial property insurance policy from Valley
Forge Insurance for protection in the event of property loss and
business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were
denied coverage despite that their respective policies do not
contain exclusions for pandemic and/or virus-related losses,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
      Frederick Longer, Esq.
      Daniel Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile (215) 592-4663

             - and -

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 346-7338
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

             - and -

      Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
      707 Grant Street, Suite 125
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      Facsimile: (412) 281-4229

             - and -

      W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
      Rachel N. Minder, Esq.
      Paul W. Evans, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
      PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      P.O. Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36103
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
             rachel.minder@beasleyallen.com
             Paul.Evans@BeasleyAllen.com


VBI VACCINES: Putative Class Suit Against SciVac Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that SciVac Ltd. continues to defend
putative class action suit in Israel.

On September 13, 2018, two civil claims were brought in the
District Court of the central district in Israel naming the
company's subsidiary SciVac as a defendant. In one claim, two
minors, through their parents, allege, among other things: defects
in certain batches of the company's 3-antigen prophylactic HBV
vaccine discovered in July 2015; that our 3-antigen prophylactic
HBV vaccine was approved for use in children and infants in Israel
without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that SciVac
failed to provide accurate information about our 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine to consumers; and that each child suffered
side effects from the vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with our
3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine in Israel from April 2011 and
seeking damages in a total amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in
thousands) ($584,603).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that our 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine was marketed in Israel without sufficient
evidence establishing its safety; and that the company's 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.

Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on
January 15, 2020, with subsequent preliminary hearings held on May
13, 2020 and December 3, 2020 to discuss document disclosure. The
next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on March 24,
2021.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 purported class action suit
entitled, Parsons v. AC & S Inc. remains stayed.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to cigarette
smoke and asbestos fibers.

The operative complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class.

The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of
three of the defendants.

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

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.

VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 purported personal injury class action
entitled, Young v. American Tobacco Co., is still stayed.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.

No class certification hearing has been held.

A stay order entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending
completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in
Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

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

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VIATRIS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to the remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs
in the putative indirect purchaser class action suit related to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector, is pending.

The Company has been named as a defendant in putative indirect
purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of
the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as common
law claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated
companies are also defendants in some of the class actions.

Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a MDL in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and have been
consolidated.

The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17
states and a RICO class.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims
asserted by plaintiffs is pending.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 company continues to defend
a putative class action suit related to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other
non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in
putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with
certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the
exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination
of pricing constraints in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and federal antitrust law. These
actions have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


VIATRIS INC: EpiPen Auto-Injector(R) Securities Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 company continues to defend
a securities class action suit related to EpiPen Auto-Injector(R).

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc., certain of Mylan's former
directors and officers, and certain of the Company's current
directors and officers in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan on the NASDAQ.


The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to the classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a
non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate
Program.

On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging substantially similar claims, but adding allegations that
defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of
purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen Auto-Injector(R) and
certain generic drugs.

The operative complaint is the third amended consolidated
complaint, which was filed on June 17, 2019, and contains the
allegations as described above against Mylan, certain of Mylan's
former directors and officers, and certain of the Company's current
directors, officers, and employees.

A class has been certified covering all persons or entities that
purchased Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24,
2019 excluding defendants, certain of the Company's current
directors and officers, former directors and officers of Mylan,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which defendants have or had a controlling interest. Plaintiffs
seek damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert costs.

On April 30, 2017, a similar lawsuit was filed in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division) in Israel, which has been stayed
pending a decision in the SDNY class action litigation.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

VIATRIS INC: EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchaser Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 company continues to defend
a putative direct purchaser class suit related to EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris
affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct
purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiff in this case asserts federal antitrust claims which
are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative
indirect purchaser class actions.

On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
that is substantially similar to the allegations in the amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


VIATRIS INC: Opioid Related Putative Class Action Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 company continues to defend
putative class action suits related to opioid.

The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors,
pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare
providers is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United
States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties,
cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil
claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices
with respect to prescription opioid products.

In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions
including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
due to alleged exposure to opioids.

The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages
(including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of
legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law
claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment.


The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of
Ohio.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


VIATRIS INC: PERS Mississippi Suit Against Mylan Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 Mylan N.V. continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by the Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi.

On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by
the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was
subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V.,
certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and an
officer and director of the Company in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact,
in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with
disclosures relating to the Morgantown manufacturing plant and
inspections at the plant by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan
N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff's
fees and costs.

Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


VROOM INC: Faces Holbrook Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES D. HOLBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VROOM, INC.; PAUL J. HENNESSY; and
DAVID K. JONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02551 (S.D.N.Y., Mar.
24, 2021) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of Vroom common stock between June 9, 2020 and
March 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to promptly disseminate accurate and truthful information with
respect to the Company's operations, business, services, markets,
competition, acquisition plans, and present and future business
prospects.

As a result of defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of Vroom common stock,
plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Vroom, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers new and used
cars, spare parts, and accessories, as well as provides
maintenance, repairing, funding, insurance, and vehicle renting
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

               -and-

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               -and-

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 292-5690
          Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
          E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com


VXL ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avant Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE AVANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VXL ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case
3:21-cv-02016 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 23, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Avant was employed by the Defendant as medical staff.

VXL ENTERPRISES LLC is a global security services organization
specializing in comprehensive critical security solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Feder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
          235 Montgomery Street Suite 1019
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 391-9476
          Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
          E-mail: daniel@dfederlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Bid to Dismiss Third Amended Forth Complaint Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOROTHY FORTH, DONNA BAILEY, LISA BULLARD, RICARDO
GONZALES, CYNTHIA RUSSO, TROY TERMINE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 38 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 295-295C WELFARE FUND, AND
STEAMFITTERS FUND LOCAL 439, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALGREEN CO., Defendants, Case
No. 17 C 2246 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
grants Walgreens' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint to
the extent that it attempts to state claims as to "non-Value Priced
Generics."

Walgreens is the largest retail pharmacy in the United States; in
fiscal year 2016, it filled 928.5 million prescriptions and earned
approximately $56.1 billion in pharmacy sales in the United States.
In 2007, it created the "Prescription Savings Club" ("PSC"), which
offers generic drug prices that are competitive with the prices
offered by these major retailers.  A subset of approximately 500
PSC generics is on Walgreens's Value-Priced medication list.

The complaint alleges that, at the same time it offered low prices
through the PSC to direct-pay customers, Walgreens charged higher
prices to customers purchasing those same drugs through private
insurance or through Medicare or Medicaid.  The Plaintiffs allege
significant damages due to Walgreens' dual-pricing scheme.

In 2017, Plaintiffs Forth, Bullard, Gonzales, and Russo ("Consumer
Plaintiffs"), and Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 38 Health and Welfare Fund, International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 295-295C Welfare Fund, and
Steamfitters Fund Local 439 ("Fund Plaintiffs"), filed the putative
class action against Defendant Walgreens.

The Plaintiffs claim that Walgreens engaged in fraudulent pricing
practices to artificially inflate the "usual and customary prices"
reported to health insurance companies and related third-party
payors, which caused them to overpay for generic drugs.  They plead
claims of fraud and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of
state consumer-protection statutes in twenty states.  They also
seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, et seq.

Nearly three years after the Plaintiffs filed their original
complaint, they sought leave to file a third amended complaint
asserting that Walgreens's scheme involved another category of
generic drugs -- called non-Value Priced Generics -- in addition to
the Value Priced Generics put at issue in the operative complaint.
The Court permitted the amendment.

The Third Amended Complaint hanged the complaint's definition of
"PSC Generics" -- i.e., the drugs at issue in the alleged scheme.
In their prior complaint, the Plaintiffs had defined "PSC Generics"
as the "most commonly used generics for cardiovascular, diabetes,
pain, psychiatric illnesses, gastrointestinal disorders, and other
common ailments" identified on the Value-Priced medication list.
The Third Amended Complaint defines "PSC Generics" as the
"thousands of generic mediations" on the "PSC formulary;" it no
longer cites to the Value-Priced medication list.

Walgreens has moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint to the
extent that it attempts to state claims as to "non-VPG generics."
Specifically, Walgreens argues that the Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint fails to adequately plead with particularity that the
alleged fraudulent scheme involved non-VPG drugs.  The Plaintiffs'
prior complaint identified examples -- by date, tier, and price --
of the Plaintiffs' purchases of VPGs for which they claim Walgreens
overcharged them.  But, as Walgreens correctly points out, the
Third Amended Complaint does not add any similar examples of
non-VPG drugs the Plaintiffs allegedly purchased.

Judge Lee holds that the Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file a
Third Amended Complaint after the case had been pending for
approximately three years with the understanding that they would
"mirror their contentions with regard to Value Priced Generics to
include non-Value Priced Generics.  The Plaintiffs' new complaint
falls well short of the mark.  To hold otherwise would allow the
Plaintiffs to substantially broaden the scope of this fraud action
by making their allegations less specific, rather than more.  Such
a result would be contrary to the purposes of Rule 9(b) and the
intent of the Court when it granted the Plaintiff leave to file the
amended complaint.

During its colloquy with counsel prior to granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend, the Court stated its expectation that in order to
adequately plead a claim as to the non-VPG drugs, the Plaintiffs
would need to "find someone or try to make some allegations with
regard to drugs that are not on the Value-Priced medication list."
Given that discovery had been underway in the case for over a year
by the time the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed, as
well as their assertion that there are thousands of non-VPG drugs
on Walgreens's PSC formulary, Rule 9 required the Plaintiffs to
investigate and plead representative transactions involving non-VPG
drugs.4

Because the Plaintiffs merely changed the definition of "PSC
Generics" to include non-VPG drugs and offered little else, Judge
Lee holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead any "factual
content" that goes beyond their prior complaint and that would
permit the Court to "draw the reasonable inference" they had
plausibly been overcharged for non-VPGs.  Therefore, Walgreens's
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint as to non-VPG drugs
is granted.  The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed to the extent
it asserts claims involving non-VPG drugs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rnutft5 from
Leagle.com.


WALGREEN CO: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jean-Pierre Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONELIKA JEAN-PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01452 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought for damages and other legal and equitable relief
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New York
State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately July
2018 through August 2019 as an hourly-paid manual worker.

The Plaintiff asserts that she was paid on a bi-weekly basis
throughout her employment with the Defendant, thereby failing to
timely receive all her wages for all hours she worked.
Additionally, she was required to wear a uniform consisting of a
shirt emblazoned with the Defendant's logo, but the Defendant never
paid her for uniform maintenance.

The Plaintiff seeks for actual damages, liquidated damages equal to
100% of actual damages and equal to 100% untimely wage payments,
litigation costs and disbursements incurred in connection with the
action including reasonable attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper.

Walgreen Co. provides online medical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bouklas, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Tel: (516) 742-4949
          E-mail: james@bglawny.com


WALMART INC: Faces Arrison Suit Over Unpaid Wages During Pandemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY ARRISON; and TRISTAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC.; and WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-00481-CDB (D. Ariz.,
Mar. 22, 2021) seeks to recover compensation from the Defendants
under Arizona law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented a company
wide policy requiring workers to undergo a mandatory COVID-19
screening each shift. Workers were instructed to arrive before
their scheduled shift to complete the requisite questionnaire,
screening, and body temperature. The Defendants' workers continue
to work through the COVID-19 pandemic. The workers put in the time
necessary to comply with the Defendants' COVID-19 policies so that
the Defendants' store can remain in operation. However, the
Defendants failed to pay the workers for the time that the
Defendants require them. As a result, Walmart is unjustly enriched
at the expense of its workers, the suit says.

Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. Walmart serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Anthony J. Meyer, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          103 Ripley Street
          Columbia, MO 65201
          Telephone: (573) 875-1991
          Facsimile: (573) 279-0024
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com


WALMART INC: Faces Martin Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WALMART INC., C. DOUGLAS MCMILLON, and M. BRETT BIGGS,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00342-UNA (D. Del. March 5, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Walmart securities between March 30, 2016
and December 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 31, 2017, the Company filed its annual report on Form 10-K
for the year ended January 31, 2017 with the SEC (the "2016 10-K").
The 2016 10-K was signed by Defendants McMillon and Biggs. The 2016
10-K contained signed SOX certifications by Defendants McMillon and
Biggs attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.
The Company reported that 11% of its total merchandise sales from
Walmart U.S. were from the "Health and Wellness" category, which
included revenues from its pharmacy business.

On December 22, 2020, while the market was open, the Department of
Justice announced in a press release that it has filed a lawsuit
against Walmart for alleged violations of the Controlled Substances
Act and the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. On this news,
Walmart's stock price fell $2.75 per share, or 1.88%, over the next
two trading days to close at $143.22 per share on December 23,
2020.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased Walmart securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

Defendant Walmart engages in the retail and wholesaleoperations in
various formats worldwide. The Company operates in three segments:
Walmart U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. It operates
supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets,  warehouse clubs, cash
and carry stores, discount stores, drugstores, and convenience
stores; membership-only warehouse clubs; ecommerce websites, such
as walmart.com, walmart.com.mx, asda.com, walmart.ca, flipkart.com,
and samsclub.com; and mobile commerce applications. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw , Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 274-2180
          E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

               - and -

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

WASHBOYS FULL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henry Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLENTON HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASHBOYS FULL SERVICE CARWASH LLC; and HANI
SAID, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00947 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 24, 2021)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Henry was employed by the Defendants as clerk.

WASHBOYS FULL SERVICE CARWASH LLC operates a carwash and detailing
company located in Baytown, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Records $1.1MM Loss Reserve in Herrington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company recorded
a loss reserve with respect to Herrington et al. v. Waterstone
Mortgage Corporation for $1.1 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2020.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.

On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in
large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount
of $7.3 million in damages to Claimants, $3.3 million in attorney
fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff
Herrington.

Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling
in October 2018 vacating the District Court's order enforcing the
arbitration award, and remanded the case to the District Court.

On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff's claims
must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a result,
it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its entirety, and
issued a revised judgment in Waterstone's favor.

In May 2019, Herrington re-initiated her individual arbitration.
The arbitrator issued a written award on February 18, 2020 in which
he found Waterstone liable for damages, awarding Herrington $14,952
in damages on her claims.

On May 6, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award that would allow
Herrington to recover $1.1 million in attorney fees and costs.  

As a result of that award, the Company recorded a loss reserve with
respect to this matter for $1.1 million during the three months
ended March 31, 2020.

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: Faces Fortuna Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FORTUNA CANNERY, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00458-YY (D. Ore.,
March 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
declaratory relief and breach of contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to provide coverage
for damages and losses sustained by Oregon businesses, including
the Plaintiff, as a result of governmental orders that have either
closed or significantly limited business operations in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant issued an all-risk insurance
policy to the Plaintiff and promises to pay for all risks of direct
physical loss or direct physical damage to covered property, and
includes, among other coverages, Business Interruption coverage,
Extra Expense coverage, and Civil Authority coverage. The Plaintiff
asserts that its insurance claim is covered by the policy since it
sustained direct physical loss or direct physical damage due to
suspension or interruption of its operation as a result of the
government orders.

Fortuna Cannery, LLC is a company that owns the Cannery Pier Hotel
& Spa located at 10 Basin Street, Astoria, Oregon.

Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company is an insurance company
located in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
         FOREMAN STURM & THEDE, LLP
         P.O. Box 13098
         Portland, OR 97213
         Telephone: (503) 206-5824
         E-mail: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
                 nick.thede@foremansturm.com

                 - and –

         Nicholas A Kahl, Esq.
         NICK KAHL, LLC
         209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
         Portland, OR 97204
         Telephone: (971) 634-0829
         Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
         E-mail: nick@nickkahl.com

                 - and –

         Craig Lowell, Esq.
         WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
         The Kress Building,
         301 19th Street North
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 809-7707
         Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
         E-mail: clowell@wigginschilds.com

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: BolaWrap Related Putative Class Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative securities class action suit
entitled, In re Wrap Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange Act
Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG ("PVCx").  

On September 23, 2020, Carone Cobden filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer David
Norris, Chief Financial Officer, James A. Barnes, and President,
Thomas Smith in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, docketed as Case No.
2-20-cv-08760-DMG-PVCx.

The Cobden Complaint alleges that the named defendants, in their
capacities as officers of the Company, knowingly made false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding trials of the
Company's BolaWrap product conducted by the Los Angeles Police
Department (the "BolaWrap Pilot Program").  

The Cobden Complaint also alleges that the conduct of the named
defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's traded
securities, and that the disclosure of certain adverse information
to the public led to a decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.  

The Cobden Complaint further alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and defines the class period as July 31, 2020 through
September 23, 2020.

On October 1, 2020, Joseph Mercurio filed a second putative class
action complaint against the Company, Norris, Smith, and Barnes in
the same court, which contains substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden Complaint,
and is docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09030-DMG-PVCx.  

On October 15, 2020, Paula Earley filed a third putative class
action complaint against the Company, Smith, Norris, Barnes, Chief
Strategy Officer Mike Rothans, and former Chief Executive Officer,
Marc Thomas in the same court, which contains many of the same
factual allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden and
Mercurio Complaints, but defines the class period as April 29, 2020
through September 23, 2020, and alleges additional false or
misleading statements in connection with BolaWrap and the BolaWrap
Pilot Program. The Earley Complaint is docketed as Case No.
2-20-cv-09444-DMG-PVCx.

On November 3, 2020, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee consolidated the three
above-mentioned cases under the caption In re Wrap Technologies,
Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG
("PVCx").  

On January 7, 2021, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the
Securities Action, who designated its attorneys as lead counsel. On
January 21, 2021, Judge Gee ordered that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed in the Securities Action on or before March 12,
2021, with defendants' motion to dismiss to be filed on or before
April 26, 2021, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss to be held
on July 23, 2021.

The Company believes that the complaints underlying the Securities
Action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
the claims raised therein.

Wrap Technologies, Inc. designs, produces, and markets security
products. The Company focuses on developing security products
designed for the use of law enforcement and security personnel.
Wrap Technologies serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Tempe, Arizona.

WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Junks Nolen Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nolen, et al., v. Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00330 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Paul G Byron entered an endorsed order:

   1. denying as moot motion to certify class; and

   2. denying as moot Motion to Seal in light of Order dismissing
      the Plaintiffs' complaint and requiring Plaintiffs to file a

      second amended complaint.

The nature of suit states Contract - Other Contract.

Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. develops, markets and sells
vacation ownership interests to individual consumers.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]

XL FLEET: Faces Suh Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
JEFF SUH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XL FLEET CORP., THOMAS J. HYNES III, DIMITRI
KAZARINOFF, and JONATHAN J. LEDECKY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02002
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet
securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled
"XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed
that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future
class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too
technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised
timeline."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09, or 13%, to
close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69, or
19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that XL Fleet's
salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to
boost the Company's reported sales and backlog.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Plaintiff Suh purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets in North America. It offers hybrid and plug-in
hybrid electric drive systems. XL Fleet formed via merger of XL
Hybrids, Inc. and Pivotal Investment Corporation II"), which closed
on or about December 22, 2020. Pivotal was a special purpose
acquisition company incorporated for the purpose of entering into a
merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase,
recapitalization, reorganization or similar business combination
with one or more businesses or entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

ZHAORUI FAN: Faces Labor Suit Over Dischargeability of Debts
------------------------------------------------------------
ZHAORUI FAN, Debtor, GUANGLEI JIAO, NAN YU, RUIJI ZHAI, YANJUN LI,
and TROY LAW PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZHAORUI FAN, Defendant, Case No.
1-21-01037-jmm (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2021) is a class action that
objects the Debtor's dischargeability of debts with regards to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated restaurant employees overtime wages and spread of hours
premium for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant at Shang Shang Qian
restaurant located at 36-34 Union Street, Flushing, New York at any
time between 2016 and 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         John Troy, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
         E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

ZORO TOOLS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZORO TOOLS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02401 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's website has multiple
access barriers which he encountered during his visits to the
Website, https://www.zoro.com/, the last occurring in March 2021,
in an attempt to purchase tools and technology supplies such as
power tools, hand tools, audio speakers, computer accessories and
other products available online for purchase. These multiple access
barriers denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person, and full and equal access to the goods and services
that the Defendant's website offered to the public and made
available to the public, the Plaintiff adds.

Because the Defendant has failed to comply with the WCAG 2.0
Guidelines by failing to construct and maintain a website that is
accessible to visually-impaired individuals, and failing to take
actions to correct these access barriers, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant has engaged in an intentional discrimination.

Zoro Tools, Inc. operates the Zoro online retail store across the
U.S. through its commercial website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBolita, Esq
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Tel: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal


ZURICH AMERICAN: Simpson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY
INC. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN GUARANTEE &
LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01671-TSH (N.D. Calif., March 9, 2020) is a class
action complaint for declaratory relief, breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and unfair business
practices.

This is an action by insurance policyholders who for many years
paid substantial premiums to purchase primary and excess/umbrella
general liability insurance from Zurich American Insurance Company
and its subsidiaries.

The Defendants operate as a single insurance enterprise that
operates and holds itself out as "Zurich."

The Plaintiffs contend that Zurich made the core promises a general
liability insurer makes to its insureds: (1) to
defend its policyholders from and against suits even potentially
covered under the policies Zurich issued; (2) to pay liabilities
covered under any of the policies Zurich issued to its
policyholders; and (3) to never, ever, place its own interests
above the interests of its insureds.

According to the complaint, Zurich has wrongfully attempted to
shift to Plaintiffs a large loss Zurich paid on behalf of another
insured. In its attempt to do so, Zurich has: advanced against the
Plaintiffs the very type of allegations Zurich pledged to defend;
allied itself and knowingly cooperated with other forces falsely
and wrongly accusing Simpson of marketing defective products, and
thereby encouraged a proliferation of claims against Simpson, its
own insured; and utterly trampled on its duty of good faith and
fair dealing, by turning its guns against longtime insureds it
repeatedly promised to protect, in a hopelessly misguided attempt
to recover from Simpson monies Zurich paid on behalf of another
Zurich policyholder.

Simpson Manufacturing designs and manufactures steel connectors,
anchors, and other products for the construction industry.  Simpson
Manufacturing is a named insured under certain commercial general
liability and excess liability insurance policies issued by Zurich
American and relevant to this action.

Zurich American Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony B. Leuin, Esq.
          Erick C. Howard, Esq.
          Felicia A. Draper, Esq.
          SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP
          One Maritime Plaza, Eighteenth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3598
          Telephone: (415) 421-6500
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2922
          E-mail: aleuin@sflaw.com
                  ehoward@sflaw.com
                  fdraper@sflaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***