/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201214.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 249

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Dangerous to Human Health, Williams Says
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Pose Risks to Human Health, Folks Claims
3M COMPANY: Blevins Alleges Hazards From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Collie Alleges Injury From Exposure to AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Davidson Alleges Injury From Exposure to AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Higgins Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Exposure to AFFF Products Causes Injury, Gooch Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Smith Suit Over Injury From Toxic AFFF Exposure
3M COMPANY: Herrera Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: McCoy Suit Alleges Death From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Mesger Suit Alleges Injury from Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Sternberg Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Welfare Fund Securities Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Adams Sues Over Project Managers' Unpaid OT

ACE HIGH: Class of Brand Ambassadors Conditionally Certified
ADMIN RECOVERY: Gordon Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
ALLIED STAFF: Bullard Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Amended Huey Suit
AMCANN INC: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses

AMCOL SYSTEMS: Class Certification Denied as Moot in Shorey Suit
AMERICAN GLOBAL: Hardin Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Class Suit by Former IMS Staff Ongoing
AMYRIS INC: Amount of Atty's Fees in Flatischler Under Negotiation
AMYRIS INC: Bid to Junk Securities Class Suit in California Denied

ARTECH L.L.C.: Haynes Seeks Conditional Class Certification
ATLANTA IMPORTS: Revilla Seeks to Certify Grocery Workers Class
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Findley Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
AYRO INC: Discloses Nonpayment of $45K Counsel Fees in DropCar Suit
BACTOLAC PHARMA: Copley, et al. Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes

BARKMAN HONEY: Wingate Seeks Class Action Status
BAYADA HOME: Bid for Final Certification of Collective Suit Filed
BEANFIELDS PBC: Wightman Sues Over Deceptive Bean Chips Labels
BELLE TIRE: Schmitt Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT for Technicians
BETTER PRODUCE: Court Issues Protective Order in Santiago FLSA Suit

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Facing Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec Related Suit
BOOKPAL LLC: Angeles Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
C&S PLASTICS: Valle Sues Over Line Operators' Unpaid Overtime
CAPITAL INTERIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rosales Suit Alleges
CARBONITE INC: Construction Industry Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir.

CASSA GROVE: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
CEVA LOGISTICS: Aldape Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
CHANGYOU.COM: ODS Capital Sues Over Misstatements and Omissions
CHICKASHA, OK: Blue et al. Sue Over Firefighters' Unpaid Overtime
CITATION OIL: Court Orders Filing Fee Payment in Johnson Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Lim Sues Over $17.43 Billion of Shareholder Losses
CONDUENT INC: Harrington Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
CONSUMER CELLULAR: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
COTY INC: Continues to Defend Suit over Cottage Holdco Tender Offer
COTY INC: Garrett-Evans Putative Class Action Underway

CREDIBLE LABS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Says
CSRT EXPEDITED: Dueker's Motion for Class Certification Denied
CUTS CLOTHING: Monegro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CVS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Complaint
DAWN FOOD: Potter Suit Wins Conditional Collective Status

DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Ali
DC INTERNATIONAL: Elliot FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. La.
DESERT STATE: Protective Order on Cincinnati Depositions Partly OKd
DISH NETWORK: Krakauer Bid to Dismiss Appeal Pending
DISH NETWORK: Trial in Stockholder's Suit vs Ergen to Start in 2021

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Renewed Bid for Class Status Denied
EASCARE LLC: Court Dismisses Counts III & IV in Kenn FCRA Suit
EASTERN MUSHROOM: Bi-Lo Loses Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
ECOLAB INC: Lindsey Sues Over Harmful Effects of OxyCide Cleaners
ENVESTNET: Bid to Dismiss Wesch Putative Class Suit Pending

ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Tipped Employees Class Conditionally Certified
EUPHORIA WELLNESS: Jackson TCPA Suit Venue Moved to Nevada District
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doe ERISA Suit
FACEBOOK TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. California

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Temporarily Stay Allred Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Concluded
FLINT, MI: Court Issues Case Management Order in Water Cases
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to D.N.J.
FRANK'S BAY PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Perez Says

FRUIT COMPANY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
G4S SECURE: Has 90 Days to File Bid for Snell Deal Prelim. Approval
GATE GOURMET: Scott Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
GEO SECURE: Prison Officers Settlement Class Proposed
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of Transient Tax Suit Upheld

GREATER BALTIMORE: Denial of Class Cert. in Silver Vacated in Part
GRIPPO POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GROUP HEALTH: N.C. Court Narrows Claims in Greenwell ERISA Suit
GUEST-TEK: Misclassifies Installation Managers, Baptiste Claims
GUY'S SNACKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

H&E EQUIPMENT: Mizar Employment Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
HI-TECH ENERGY: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Starwood Wins Summary Judgment in Simchon Suit
HOME DEPOT: Class Certification Continued to Sept. 2021
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Settlement Class Certified in Flowers Suit

I.C. SYSTEM: Clark Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Ongoing
IMPAC MORTGAGE: McNair-Batres Consolidated Suit Trial Set for 2021
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Petition for Review in Marentes Suit Underway
INMATE SERVICES: Bid to Certify Class in Stearns Partly Denied

INVENTURE FOODS: Nason Balks at Mislabeled Mozzarella Sticks Snacks
JAMES S. FARRIN: Narrows Claims in Garey DPPA Lawsuit
KAHOOTS INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KCI USA: Objection to Denial of Amended Palmer Filing Overruled
KELCO FEDERAL: Winner Sues Over Noncompliance of Mortgage Note

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
KING COUNTY, WA: Appeals Court Affirms Doe AA & CC's Pseudonym Use
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Labor Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
LARQ INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LASKO PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LENDER411 LLC: Degrate Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif.
LENDINGTREE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jones FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Chapman Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
LOREX CORP: Soo Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Class Claims

LVNV FUNDING: Saks Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
LYFT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Securities Action
LYFT INC: Order Modifying Briefing Sched for Class Cert. Bid Issued
M&M BEDDING: Fails to Pay OT to Sales Reps, Francis Suit Alleges
M&R SCARSDALE: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Staff

MALIBU BOATS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York
MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Ongoing
MDL 2323: Henry Appeals Order in Concussion Injury Suit to 3rd Cir.
MDL 2672: Plaintiffs Awarded $17,400 Costs in VW Clean Diesel Suit
MDL 2795: $18.5MM Deal in CenturyLink Securities Suit Gets Final OK

MDL 2795: Limited Intervention Allowed to Litigate Arbitration Bid
MEDICAL ADVANTAGE: Misclassifies Trainers, Jones Suit Claims
MEMORIAL HERMANN: Woody DTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Bryant Prisoners Suit Against MDOC
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: McCoy Sues Over Decline in Stock Prices

MM 879: Court Won't Revise Class Certification Order
MR. COOPER: Faces Dabbs Suit Over Failure to Pay Property Taxes
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Decertify Class in "McNamee" Denied
NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell to Supplement Disclosures on Claimed Damages
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Koger et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT & Sick Leave

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Olivares Wage Suit Removed to S.D. California
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane, et al. Bid for Class Certification Denied
ON POINT HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Williams Claims
ORCHID STREET: Gray Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
OREGON: Loses Bid to Dismiss J.N. Suit v. Department of Education

PEI WEI ASIAN: Class of GMs in Clarke Suit Conditionally Certified
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Sorin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PENNSYLVANIA: Katona Sues Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
PERFORMANCE CHORES: Ehrlich Sues Over Unpaid OT, Unreimbursed Costs
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident

PORTLAND, OR: Summary Judgment Approval in Haber Suit Recommended
PREFERRED HOME: Gonzalez De Fuente Appeals Judgment in ERISA Suit
PRESSED JUICERY: Christian Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PRET A MANGER: Quarles Suit removed to N.D. Illinois
PRIME NOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pope Suit Alleges

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed
PSCU INC: Loses Bid to Transfer Brown FLSA Suit to M.D. Florida
PUBLIX SUPER: Seventh Circuit Revives 100% Claims in Bell Suit
QUALITY CARRIERS: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Salter to State Court
ROBERT SINK LAW: Downey Suit Alleges Violation of the RICO Act

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Berube Alleges
ROXBURY SURGERY: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
RUBY TUESDAY: Court Dismisses Delacruz ADA Class Action
RYDER LAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cabral Suit Claims
S-L SNACKS: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McGee Class Suit

SALVATION ARMY: Parker FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
SCOTT & WHITE: Must Defend Suit over Unnamed Plans
SENIOR CARE: Moss Seeks to Certify NCWHA & Title VII Classes
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Nguyen Suit
SKECHERS USA: Dismissal of Steamfitters Suit Affirmed

SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
SMCS SERVICES: Underpays LPNs & Aides, Clevenger et al. Suit Say
SOLUTIONZ VIDEOCONFERENCING: Faces Pujols Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SONENDO INC: Engineers Class Conditionally Certified
SPARTAN ENTERPRISES: Guevara Wins Conditional Class Certification

SPECIALTYCARE USA: Viteri FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ST MARY PARISH: Court Recertifies Class in Boudreaux Lawsuit
STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
SUPREME ADVOCATES: Cain Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
TABULA RASA: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
TD BANK: Campagna Suit Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
THI OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Faces Koger Suit Over Wrongful Termination
THOR MOTOR: Two Classes Conditionally Certified in Hayes FLSA Suit
TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Seeks to Certify Nurse Anesthetists Class

TOTAL LIFE: Williams Suit removed to D. Minnesota
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Schuler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Tentative Settlement Reached in BCBSA Suit
TRONOX INC: Waleski Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
ULTIMATE FOOT: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alexander ERISA Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Wit ERISA Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Prelim Injunction Bid in Gilliam Suit
UNITED STATES: Kowalski Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Illinois
UNIVERSAL CABLE: Bid to Certify Class in Bailey Suit Now Moot

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Hyatte Seeks Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
US BANCORP: Smith, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Plan Holders
US OIL FUND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
US PREMIUM: Antitrust and Labelling Suits vs. NBP Underway
USA: Certification of Probable Cause Subclass in Gonzalez Upheld

USCB INC: Yeftanoday Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Class Certification Bid in Hirsch Suit Denied
VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Seeks Collective Action Status
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Mathews Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Summary Judgment in Roper Wage Suit

VERSO CORPORATION: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
VERTAFORE INC: Masciotra Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
VMG PARTNERS: Salony Files Suit in S.D. New York
WAKEMED: Nicholson Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
WELD COUNTY, CO: Prelim Injunction in Martinez Has 58-Day Extension

WELLS FARGO: Liguori Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Hernandez Deal
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Harrington Suit Gets Prelim. Okay
WEST TEXAS PAVING: Avalos et al. Seek Collective Action Status
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Court Enters Stipulated ESI Protocol in Nathan Suit
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Omnibus Bid to Nix PPP Related Suit Pending

WONDERY INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Contract Carriers' Class Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review in Acosta Labor Suit

XTREME MANUFACTURING: Gonzalez Sues Over Machinists' Unpaid Wages
YELP INC: Securities Class Action Ongoing in California
YERBA MATE: Court Dismisses Section 632 Claim in Troyer Suit
YOUNG LIVING: Faces Branchaud Suit Over Mislabeled Health Products
YRC INC: Batta Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

ZIMMER BIOMET: Settlement in Shah Suit Granted Final Approval
ZINO NURSERY: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Landscapers
ZIP TOP: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOOSHOO INC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fuchs Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York


                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Dangerous to Human Health, Williams Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS WILLIAMS, 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. 2:20-cv-04239-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications as
a result of his consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products.

The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Pose Risks to Human Health, Folks Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER FOLKS, 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. 2:20-cv-04247-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications.

The Folks case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Blevins Alleges Hazards From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Allen Bocock v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining And
Manufacturing Company), AGC 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.), Case No. 2:20-cv-04087-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 24,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury and death resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products caused the Decedent to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein including death, the suit says.

The Plaintiff, the duly-appointed executor of the Estate of Travis
Preston Blevins, seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of the Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products at various locations during the course of Decedent’s
training and firefighting activities.

The Blevins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Collie Alleges Injury From Exposure to AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EDWARD COLLIE, 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. 2:20-cv-04248-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

The Collie case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Davidson Alleges Injury From Exposure to AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD DAVIDSON, 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. 2:20-cv-04238-RMG
(D.S.C., December 7, 2020) 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 the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

The Davidson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Higgins Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WAYNE HIGGINS, 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. 2:20-cv-04245-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants due to
their failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans. The Defendants' failure to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, about
the danger of the products to human health caused the Plaintiff to
develop serious medical conditions and complications.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.

The Higgins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Exposure to AFFF Products Causes Injury, Gooch Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN DWAYNE GOOCH, 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. 2:20-cv-04246-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants knew that their AFFF products contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, but they failed to warn end
users of the products about the health risks. The Plaintiff was
unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products.

As a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities, he developed serious medical conditions and
complications.

The Gooch case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Faces Smith Suit Over Injury From Toxic AFFF Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STUART LEE SMITH, 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. 2:20-cv-04241-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

The Smith case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Herrera Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Allen Bocock v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining And
Manufacturing Company), AGC 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.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03981-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 16,
2020) seeks damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Herrera case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PETER JOHNSON, 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. 2:20-cv-04244-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 Plaintiff bring this case after sustaining personal injury as a
result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of or exposure
to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications.

The Johnson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: McCoy Suit Alleges Death From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA B. MCCOY, as Executrix of the Estate of EDWIN DAVID MILLIGAN
JR., deceased, 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. 2:20-cv-04242-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are highly
toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees
who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger
to human health.

Edwin David Milligan Jr. was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. His diagnosis
caused and/or contributed to his death. As a result of the
Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination, Mr. Milligan
suffered severe personal injuries by exposure to AFFF containing
PFAS.

The McCoy case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Mesger Suit Alleges Injury from Toxic AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT EUGENE MESGER, 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. 2:20-cv-04243-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition.

The Mesger case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Sternberg Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREDRIC IVAN STERNBERG, 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. 2:20-cv-04240-RMG
(D.S.C., December 8, 2020) 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 the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

The Sternberg case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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 manufacturer of specialty chemicals
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:                

         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

                 - and –

         J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
         Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
         BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
         219 Ridge Street
         Georgetown, SC 25442
         Telephone: (843) 546-2408
         Facsimile: (843) 546-9604

3M COMPANY: Welfare Fund Securities Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HEAVY & GENERAL LABORERS' LOCALS 472 & 172
WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, INGE G. THULIN, MICHAEL F. ROMAN and
NICHOLAS C. GANGESTAD, Case No. 2:19-cv-15982, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-02488-NEB-BRT to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging
in a scheme to defraud investors and issuing false and misleading
statements to conceal the truth about the 3M Company's exposure to
legal liability associated with its manmade chemicals known as per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
that produces a variety of chemical substances and related products
based in Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                   
                  
         Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
         SEEGER WEISS LLP
         55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
         Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
         Telephone: (973) 639-9100
         Facsimile: (973) 639-8656
         E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

                - and –

         Samuel H. Rudman, 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

ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Adams Sues Over Project Managers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE ADAMS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ABSOLUTE CONSULTING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-01099 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2020) brings this complaint
as a collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
project manager from March 2016 until April 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff often worked 50-60 hours
or more per week. However, instead of paying her at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff
thru its "straight time for overtime scheme" in which the Plaintiff
was paid at her regular hourly rate only for all hours she worked

Absolute Consulting, Inc. is a staffing company that provides
workers to the power industry including nuclear, thermal/fossil,
transmission and distribution, oil and gas, renewable energy, and
automotive. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ACE HIGH: Class of Brand Ambassadors Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICE EYO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ACE HIGH MARKETING,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01018-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy
Totenberg entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
      Certification on behalf of:

      "a class of similarly situated Ace High Brand
      Ambassadors;"

   2. directing the Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel
      with contact information for the potential members of
      the collective class to facilitate notice on or before
      December 14, 2020. For each and every Brand Ambassador
      employed by Ace High from March 5, 2017 (three years
      before the filing of this lawsuit) through the present,
      Defendant is required to provide the following information
      to Plaintiff's counsel in electronic format: Full Name;
      Last Known Address including Street Name and Number (or
      P.O. Box), City, State, and Zip Code; Dates of Employment;
      and Any and All Email Addresses used by the current or
      former Brand Ambassador that have been furnished to
      Defendant whether in applications, electronic or other
      communications, or otherwise;

   3. approving the supplemented form notice;

   4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to advise the Court's
      Deputy Clerk, Harry Martin, by letter within three
      business days of its completion of the process of
      identifying the class members' information of the
      projected date for completion of the process for
      transmitting notice to class members;

   5. directing the Plaintiff to transmit notices to the class
      no later than March 12, 2021; and

   6. directing the Plaintiff to notify all prospective members
      of the opt-in contingent class that (a) they have 60 days
      from the date of the notice to file a claim and (b) the
      specific date by which the claim must be postmarked or
      otherwise transmitted to the Plaintiff's counsel.

The Court said the Plaintiff has adequately established a
"reasonable basis" for his claim that members of the putative
collective action -- defined exclusively as Ace High Brand
Ambassadors -- had similar job duties, and that they were subject
to Ace High's common scheme of failing to pay them for hours worked
despite promised wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Consequently, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has met
the requirements for conditional certification of the FLSA class.

The Plaintiff Mauricio Eyo filed suit on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated Ace High employees on March 5, 2020, alleging
that Ace High violated the FLSA's minimum wage provision when it
failed to pay him and other Brand Ambassadors for hours worked.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2W8uYK1 at no extra charge.[CC]


ADMIN RECOVERY: Gordon Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHIFRA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10017 (S.D.N.Y., November 30,
2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about January 14, 2020 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff to TD Bank N.A.
for personal purposes, specifically a TD Bank N.A. credit card. The
Defendant's collection letter offered the Plaintiff a settlement
option to pay 50% of the full account balance. It also stated that
the Defendant is not obligated to renew its offer which implies
that the offer is for a limited time and that they may not exist in
the future.

However, the Defendant sent at least three additional collection
letters dated March 6, 2020, May 2, 2020, and July 18, 2020, which
implies that the offer in the first letter is deceptive because the
Defendant intended to send future letters with the same exact
offers in subsequent months. As a result, the Defendant has
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by making false and misleading
representation.

Admin Recovery, LLC is 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


ALLIED STAFF: Bullard Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTLAND BULLARD,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ALLIED STAFF
AUGMENTATION PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00257-JSM-PRL (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying a class of Straight Time Employees and authorizing him
to send his proposed Notice to these workers via mail, email, and
text message:

   "all employees of Allied Staff Augmentation Partners, Inc.
   (ASAP) who were paid the same hourly rate for all hours
   worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
   or "straight time for overtime," at any time during the past
   3 years."

The Plaintiff contends that due to ASAP's company-wide policies and
procedures -- whereby it pays all of the Straight Time Employees
straight time for all overtime hours worked each week -- he and the
Straight Time Employees have been, and continue to be, deprived of
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ASAP is a national staffing agency.  ASAP "provide[s] onboarding,
payroll, benefits and onboarding services, as well as hiring and
recruiting for highly qualified energy and engineering sector
workers" to companies across the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
collective action dated Nov. 25, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33yUDQ7 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the plaintiff & the putative class members, are:

          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Amended Huey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FILLISA HUEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
4:19-CV-00153-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge Glen H. Davidson of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi,
Greenville Division, denied the Defendant's Amended Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Fillisa Huey maintains a residence in Cleveland, Mississippi.  She
insured the residence under a Homeowners Policy, No. 810268968,
written by the Defendant Allstate and paid the requisite annual
premiums for the coverage.  The policy provides, inter alia, that
payment for covered loss may be for Actual Cash Value ("ACV"),
which may include a deduction for depreciation of certain costs.

In February 2017, while insured under the policy, the Plaintiff's
residence suffered direct physical damage by a covered named peril.
She immediately notified the Defendant of the loss and made a
claim under the insurance policy.  The Defendant inspected her
residence and determined that the loss was covered under the
insurance policy.

On Feb. 16, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the
payment she was receiving was the ACV as calculated by it.  In
calculating the Plaintiff's ACV payment, the Defendant deducted
depreciation from the replacement cost value ("RCV").  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's method of calculating the
ACV resulted in a payment amount that is lower than the amount she
should have received under the Policy.  

She argues that Defendant, in calculating the ACV, depreciated
costs associated with labor; she asserts that labor should not be
depreciated because it does not depreciate in value over time and
because the policy language is ambiguous regarding the depreciation
of labor costs.  Based on the Defendant's alleged practice of
depreciating labor costs, the Plaintiff avers that her ACV payment
was less than the amount she was entitled to receive under the
policy, and that the Defendant thus breached its obligations under
the policy.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the matter on Oct. 11, 2019;
she then filed an Amended Complaint on Jan. 3, 2020.  In the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
breached its contractual duty to pay her and the members of the
proposed class the true ACV of their claims by wrongfully
depreciating labor costs (Count I); the Plaintiff also seeks a
declaratory judgment decreeing that the policy, as written,
prohibits the Defendant from depreciating labor costs when
calculating losses and ACV (Count 11).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Defendant
now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's entire complaint.

As for the Plaintiff's specific allegations, in Count I of the
Complaint, the Plaintiff sets forth several specific allegations
regarding the Defendant's payment of ACV, including that labor
costs were depreciated in her claim, that the policy does not
permit the depreciation of labor costs, that she was thus underpaid
on her ACV claim, and that the Defendant has therefore breached its
obligations under the policy.  

Given that the Court has found, as it has previously held and as
the Fifth Circuit recently held, that the term Actual Cash Value is
ambiguous in relation to the depreciation of labor costs in the
policy, Judge Davidson finds that the Plaintiff has stated a viable
claim for breach of contract.  Accordingly, he finds that, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the facts
alleged in the Complaint regarding the breach of contract claim
against the Defendant are sufficiently pled to survive the
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  The Defendant's
motion to dismiss Count I of the Complaint for breach of contract
will therefore be denied.

In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration
that the subject insurance policy prohibits the Defendant from
depreciating labor costs in adjusting losses when calculating ACV.
The Defendant argues that declaratory relief is not proper because
the Plaintiff primarily seeks monetary damages in the matter.

The Judge finds that, while the Plaintiff does seek monetary relief
in relation to her claim for breach of contract, the request for
declaratory relief is broader and is thus appropriate, at this
juncture, because it seeks a declaration from the Court that the
Defendant's practice of depreciating labor costs in calculating ACV
payments is itself unlawful on an ongoing basis.  Other district
courts within the Fifth Circuit have ruled likewise in similar
situations.  In addition, Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that the existence of another adequate remedy
does not preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise
appropriate.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that Count II of the
Complaint, which seeks a declaratory judgment that is otherwise
appropriate, should not be dismissed at the present juncture.

For these reasons, Judge Davidson denied the Defendant's Amended
Motion to Dismiss.  Further, the Judge lifted the stay of
proceedings that was entered in the cause on Jan. 29, 2020.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2xlndjq from Leagle.com.


AMCANN INC: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMCANN, INC., PAUL PIERCE, and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV46427 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 4, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
all overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair
competition, breach of contract, failure to pay all wages, and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in January 2016 to design
and develop a warehouse to cultivate cannabis from inception to
completion.

Amcann, Inc. is a company that operates a medical cannabis brand in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                           
         
         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         Joseph R. Holmes, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 jholmes@haineslawgroup.com

AMCOL SYSTEMS: Class Certification Denied as Moot in Shorey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SHOREY, v. AMCOL
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 20-CV-1163-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph Peter Stadtmueller entered an order:

   1. adopting the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal;

   2. dismissing the action with prejudice and without costs;
      and

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification, to stay class certification, and for relief
      from briefing requirements.

Judge Stadtmueller said, "The Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of this action with prejudice and without costs to either
party. No class has been certified in this case, and the Defendant
has served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment.
Thus, the Court will adopt the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary
dismissal."

On July 28, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and
the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mUNeST at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN GLOBAL: Hardin Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
TENLEY HARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GLOBAL SECURITY, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-10897 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant to challenge its alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed numerous calls on
her cellular telephone number ending in -2480 beginning in or
around March 2020 by using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
in an attempt to promote its services. The Plaintiff asserts that
she never provided her "prior express consent" to the Defendant to
place calls using ATDS on her cellular telephone number that was
registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about
September 15, 2008.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited calls have
harmed the Plaintiff causing her to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which she had previously paid, and
invading her privacy.

American Global Security, Inc. is a security company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


AMPHASTAR PHARMA: Class Suit by Former IMS Staff Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
International Medication Systems, Limited (IMS) continues to defend
a litigation initiated by its former employee.

On September 11, 2019, a former employee, Raquel Brenes, initiated
an employment litigation against IMS et al. by filing a Complaint
having individual and class action claims for alleged violations of
various California labor laws pertaining to wage and hour, and
other state laws.

This Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County. On September 18, 2019, Brenes filed a First Amended
Complaint maintaining the individual and class action claims.

On January 21, 2020, Brenes filed a Second Amended Complaint that
alleges only Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA, claims and
omitted the individual and class action claims.

For these PAGA claims, the parties have a mediation scheduled in
February 2021.

On February 24, 2020, IMS filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint. On February 14, 2020, Brenes filed another Complaint
against IMS in the Superior Court of California alleging various
individual claims relating to disability discrimination and
retaliation.

For these individual claims, Brenes filed a demand for arbitration
on August 31, 2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this employment
litigation.

Based in Rancho Cucamonga, California, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
Inc. manufactures injectable and inhaled drugs and drug delivery
systems. The Company also offers contractual manufacturing
services, including labeling and packaging, cold storage, and
aseptic filling.

AMYRIS INC: Amount of Atty's Fees in Flatischler Under Negotiation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs in Flatischler v.
Melo, et. al., currently seek an amount for their attorney's fees
and certain legal expenses related to filing the complaint, which
the parties are negotiating.

On July 24, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed
against Amyris and the members of its 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 at which stockholders were to vote
to approve the conversion of all outstanding indebtedness under the
Foris Convertible Note and of the company's Series E Preferred
Stock issued in the 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 LSA Amendment and
the June 2020 PIPE, and the relationships between the Company and
its financial advisors to the June 2020 PIPE.

The plaintiffs currently seek an amount for their attorney's fees
and certain legal expenses related to filing the complaint, which
the parties are negotiating.

Three substantially similar complaints were filed: one on July 28,
2020, in the United States District Court of Delaware (Sabatini v.
Amyris, Inc.); one on July 31, 2020, in the Northern District of
California (Nair v. Amyris); and another on August 4, 2020, in the
Southern District of New York (Chamorro v. Amyris). Amyris answered
the Chamorro case on October 19, 2020. The Sabatini and Nair cases
were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on October 8 and
October 22, 2020, respectively.

For this matter, as of September 30, 2020, the Company has accrued
a liability for the plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses, which are
not material.

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: Bid to Junk Securities Class Suit in California Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed
in the securities class action suit pending before the Northern
District of California, has been denied.

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 our 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.

Subsequent to the filing of the securities class action complaint
described above, on June 21, 2019 and October 1, 2019,
respectively, two separate purported shareholder derivative
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Bonner v. Doerr, et al., and Carlson v.
Doerr, et al.) based on similar allegations to those made in the
securities class action complaint and naming the Company, and
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
as defendants.

The derivative lawsuits sought to recover, on the Company's behalf,
unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in
connection with allegedly misleading statements and omissions made
in connection with the Company’s securities filings.

The derivative lawsuits were dismissed on October 18, 2019 (Bonner)
and December 10, 2019 (Carlson), without prejudice.

Amyris said, "We believe the securities class action complaint
lacks merit, and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously.
Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible
to reliably determine any potential liability that could result
from these matters."

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.

ARTECH L.L.C.: Haynes Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY HAYNES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARTECH L.L.C.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09173-CC-MF (D.N.J., Filed Jul 21, 2020), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on January 4, 2021, for an order
granting his Opposed Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice, on behalf of:

   "all current and former Artech employees who were paid the
   same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
   excess of 40 in a workweek (or, "straight time for overtime")
   at any time in the past 3 years (the "Straight Time
   Workers")."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KhBGL2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          Texas Bar No. 24105863
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ATLANTA IMPORTS: Revilla Seeks to Certify Grocery Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YADIRA REVILLA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v.
ATLANTA IMPORTS, INC. d/b/a SUVIDHA INDO-PAK GROCERIES and MANNY
SALUJA, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03825-WMR (N.D.
Ga.,Filed  Sep. 15, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order granting conditional class certification of:

   "all current and former employees of Suvidha Groceries who
   worked as cooks, dishwashers, meat cutters, stock workers,
   janitors, or other similarly-situated hourly workers, from [3
   years prior to order approving conditional certification] to
   December 31, 2018, who were not paid overtime by the
   Defendants for work over 40 hours in a work week, at the rate
   of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay."

The Plaintiff contends the Defendants own and operate a chain of
grocery stores in the Atlanta area doing business as Suvidha
Groceries. The Plaintiff and the opt-in plaintiffs were subject to
the same illegal plan or scheme by the Defendants, to have them
work in excess of 40 hours per week, without paying them overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this case, on behalf of
herself and all those similarly-situated, to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (FLSA). On
December 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Collective Action
Complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Dec. 7, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/377mOrr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Findley Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JADE FINDLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC, WALT SMITH,
and DOES 1-50, Case No. 20STCV34958, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
December 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11176 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, failure to provide required meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof, illegal terms of employment, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to make
proper disclosures, and unfair competition.

Avenue5 Residential LLC is a provider of professional property
management services to the Washington, Arizona, California, Texas,
Colorado and Oregon area. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
         Helen Braginsky, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
         E-mail: raragon@littler.com
                 hbraginsky@littler.com

AYRO INC: Discloses Nonpayment of $45K Counsel Fees in DropCar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company has not yet paid
the $45,000 as payment for counsel fees, in a class action suit
involving DropCar, Inc.

On May 28, 2020, pursuant to the previously announced Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated December 19, 2019 by and among AYRO, Inc., a
Delaware corporation previously known as DropCar, Inc., ABC Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company, and AYRO Operating Company, a Delaware corporation
previously known as AYRO, Inc., Merger Sub was merged with and into
AYRO Operating, with AYRO Operating continuing after the merger as
the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

DropCar was a defendant in a class action lawsuit which resulted in
a judgment entered into whereby the Company is required to pay
legal fees in the amount of $45,000 to the plaintiff's counsel.

As of September 30, 2020, the balance due remains $45,000.

This amount was included in the $186,000 of prefunded liabilities
assumed by AYRO in the Merger.

Ayro, Inc. designs transportation equipment. The Company
manufactures electrical locomotives such as vehicles for logistics
industry. Ayro serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Round Rock, Texas.

BACTOLAC PHARMA: Copley, et al. Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES COPLEY, JASON
EVANS, HUMBERTO GARCIA, LUZ ANGELINA GARCIA, JOAN MCDONALD, JOHN
PETERSON, BETTY PRESSLEY, NATALIE ROBERTS, NORMAN SKARE,
individually and as personal representative for BETTY SKARE, DAVID
STONE, and KAYE WINK, individually and as next of kin of DONALD
WINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; NATURMED, INC. d/b/a INSTITUTE
FOR VIBRANT LIVING; and INDEPENDENT VITAL LIFE, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00575-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 26, 2018), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying these classes pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

      A. Nationwide Class Under New York General Business Law
         (GBL) section 349 Against Defendant Bactolac
         Pharmaceutical, Inc.:

         "All persons in the United States who purchased one or
         more canisters of All Day Energy Greens that were
         manufactured as part of the Recalled Lots."

      B. Nationwide Class Under Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
         (Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 44-1521 et seq.) Against
         Defendants NaturMed, Inc. and Independent Vital Life,
         LLC:

         "All persons in the United States who purchased one or
         more canisters of All Day Energy Greens that were
         manufactured as part of the Recalled Lots."

      C. Separate Statewide Consumer Protection Act Classes
         Against Defendants Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
         NaturMed, Inc., and Independent Vital Life, LLC:

         "All citizens of [Arizona / California / Florida /
         Illinois / Missouri / New York / Oregon / South
         Carolina / Texas / Virginia / Washington / Wisconsin]
         who purchased one or more canisters of All Day Energy
         Greens that were manufactured as part of the Recalled
         Lots."

         The Statewide Consumer Protection Act Classes allege
         violations of the following consumer protection
         statutes:

         i. Arizona class: Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz.
            Rev. Stat. section 44-1521 et seq.

        ii. California: False Advertising Under California
            Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
            Code section 17500 et seq. And Unfair, Unlawful and
            Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of the
            California Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus.
            & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.

       iii. Florida: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
            Practices Act, Fla. Stat. section 501.201 et seq.

        iv. Illinois: Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
            Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1 et seq.

         v. Missouri: Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo.
            Rev. Stat. Section 407.010 et seq.

        vi. New York: New York General Business Law section 349.

       vii. Oregon: Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev.
            Stat. Section 646.608 et seq.

      viii. South Carolina: South Carolina Unfair Trade
            Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. section 39-5-10 et
            seq.

        ix. Texas: Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.
            Bus. & Com. Code section 17.41 et seq.

         x. Virginia: Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va.
            Code Ann. Section 59.1-196 et seq.

        xi. Washington: Washington Consumer Protection Act,
            Wash. Rev. Code section 19.86 et seq.

       xii. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices
            Act, Wis. Stat. Section 110.18.

      D. Separate Statewide Fraudulent Concealment Classes
         Against Defendants Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
         NaturMed, Inc., and Independent Vital Life, LLC:

         "All citizens of [Arizona / California / Florida /
         Illinois / Kentucky / Missouri / New York / Oregon /
         South Carolina / Texas / Virginia / Washington /
         Wisconsin] who purchased one or more canisters of All
         Day Energy Greens that were manufactured as part of the
         Recalled Lots."

      E. Separate Statewide Unjust Enrichment Classes Against
         Defendants Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., NaturMed,
         Inc., and Independent Vital Life, LLC:

         "All citizens of [Arizona / California / Florida /
         Illinois / Missouri / New York / Oregon / South
         Carolina / Texas / Virginia / Wisconsin] who purchased
         one or more canisters of All Day Energy Greens that
         were manufactured as part of the Recalled Lots."

      F. Separate Statewide Unjust Enrichment Classes Against
         Defendants NaturMed, Inc. and Independent Vital Life,
         LLC:

         "All citizens of [Kentucky / Washington] who purchased
         one or more canisters of All Day Energy Greens that
         were manufactured as part of the Recalled Lots."

         Excluded from the classes are (1) the Defendants, any
         entity or division in which Defendants have a
         controlling interest, and their legal representatives,
         officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the
         Judges to whom this case is assigned and each Judge's
         staff; (3) governmental entities; and (4) any
         individual who purchased one or more canisters of All
         Day Energy Greens manufactured from a Recalled Lot and
         who received a full refund for his or her purchase.

   2. appointing these Plaintiffs as representatives of
      the classes:

      A. Jeffrey Faris, Charles Copley, Jason Evans, Humberto
         Garcia, Luz Angelina Garcia, Joan McDonald, John
         Peterson, Natalie Roberts, Don Skare, as personal
         representative for Betty Skare, David Stone, Kaye Wink,
         Antonia Hampton, Raul Robles, and Kathleen Cannon as
         class representatives for the Nationwide Class under
         New York GBL section 349.

      B. Jeffrey Faris, Charles Copley, Jason Evans, Humberto
         Garcia, Luz Angelina Garcia, Joan McDonald, John
         Peterson, Natalie Roberts, Don Skare, as personal
         representative for Betty Skare, David Stone, Kaye Wink,
         as next of kin of Donald Wink, Antonia Hampton, Raul
         Robles, and Kathleen Cannon as class representatives
         for the Nationwide Class under the Arizona Consumer
         Fraud Act.

      C. Raul Robles as class representative for the Arizona
         Statewide Class alleging claims under the Arizona
         Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona's law of fraudulent
         concealment, and Arizona's law of unjust enrichment.

      D. Jason Evans as class representative for the
         California Statewide Class alleging claims for false
         advertising and unfair, unlawful and deceptive trade
         practices under the California Business and Professions
         Code, California's law of fraudulent concealment, and
         California's law of unjust enrichment / quasi-contract.

      E. Antonia Hampton as class representative for the
         Florida Statewide Class alleging claims under the
         Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
         Florida's law of fraudulent concealment, and Florida's
         law of unjust enrichment.;

      F. David Stone as class representative for the Illinois
         Statewide Class alleging claims under the Illinois
         Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, Illinois'
         law of fraudulent concealment, and Illinois' law of
         unjust enrichment.;

      G. Kaye Wink, as next of kin of Donald Wink, as class
         representative for the Kentucky Statewide Class
         alleging claims under Kentucky's law of fraudulent
         concealment and unjust enrichment.;

      H. Natalie Roberts as class representative for the
         Missouri Statewide Class alleging claims under the
         Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Missouri's law of
         fraudulent concealment, and Missouri's law of unjust
         enrichment.;

      I. Jeffrey Faris as class representative for the New York
         Statewide Class alleging claims under GBL section 349,
         New York's law of fraudulent concealment, and New
         York's law of unjust enrichment.;

      J. Joan McDonald as class representative for the Oregon
         Statewide Class alleging claims under the Oregon Unfair
         Trade Practices Act, Oregon's law of fraudulent
         concealment, and Oregon's law of unjust enrichment.

      K. John Peterson as class representative for the South
         Carolina Statewide Class alleging claims under the
         South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, South
         Carolina's law of fraudulent concealment, and South
         Carolina's law of unjust enrichment.;

      L. Humberto Garcia and Luz Angelina Garcia as class
         representatives for the Texas Statewide Class alleging
         claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
         and Texas' law of fraudulent concealment.

      M. Charles Copley as class representative for the Virginia
         Statewide Class alleging claims under the Virginia
         Consumer Protection Act, Virginia's law of fraudulent
         concealment, and Virginia's law of unjust enrichment.;

      N. Kathleen Cannon as class representative for the
         Washington Statewide Class alleging claims under the
         Washington Consumer Protection Act, Washington's law of
         fraudulent concealment, and Washington's law of unjust
         enrichment.; and

      O. Don Skare, as personal representative for Betty
         Skare, as class representative for the Wisconsin
         Statewide Class alleging claims under the Wisconsin
         Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wisconsin's law of
         fraudulent concealment, and Wisconsin's law of unjust
         enrichment.; and

   3. appointing as class counsel James J. Bilsborrow and
      Katherine Hansson of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

The Copley Suit is being consolidated with JEFFREY FARIS, ANTONIA
HAMPTON, RAUL ROBLES, and KATHLEEN CANNON, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BACTOLAC
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; NATURMED, INC. d/b/a INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT
LIVING; and INDEPENDENT VITAL LIFE, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01338-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y.).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3a8FNDR at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Classes are:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Katherine Hansson, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                 khansson@weitzlux.com

BARKMAN HONEY: Wingate Seeks Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVE WINGATE, On Behalf of
Himself and All other similarly situated, v. BARKMAN HONEY LLC, a
Domestic Corporation, TRUE SOURCE HONEY, LLC, a Foreign
Corporation, Case No. 5:19-cv-04074-HLT-JPO (D. Kan., Filed Aug.
27, 2019), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action on behalf of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased Barkman's honey
      labeled "100% Pure: Raw and Unfiltered Honey" in Illinois
      during the applicable limitations period (the Class
      Period)";

      Excluded from the Class are (a) any judge or magistrate
      judge presiding over this action and members of their
      families; (b) Barkman, any entity in which Barkman has a
      controlling interest or which has a controlling interest
      in Barkman, and Barkman's legal representatives, assigns,
      and successors; and (c) all persons who properly execute
      and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class.;

   2. naming himself as the representative of the Class;

   3. appointing his counsel as counsel to the class.

The Plaintiff contends that Barkman has falsely marketed and
advertised its honey as "100% Pure: Raw & Unfiltered Honey." He
adds that Barkman was well aware of consumer preferences for raw
honey, and therefore employed a strategic marketing campaign
intended to mislead consumers, such as him and the Proposed Class,
into believing that its honey products are 100% raw, even though
they are not. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, as well as
a class of consumers from Illinois, bought Barkman's honey that was
bottled with uniform labels that misrepresented the quality and
integrity of the honey inside the bottles and now moves for
certification of their claims for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), fraudulent misrepresentation and
declaratory relief.

Barkman Honey distributes packaged food. The Company offers variety
of honey and sweeteners.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3ncJe03 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Phillip Gragson, Esq.
          John H. Hutton, Esq.
          HENSON, HUTTON, MUDRICK,
          GRAGSON & VOGELSBERG, L.L.P.
          3649 SW Burlingame Rd., Ste. 200
          Topeka, KS 66611-2155
          Telephone: (785) 232-2200
          Facsimile: (785) 232-3344
          E-mail: jpgragson@hhmglaw.com
                  jhutton@hhmglaw.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq.
          KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES
          1056 Gage St., No. 200
          Winnetka, IL 60093
          Telephone: (847) 446-2430
          E-mail: heitzinger.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF Terrence BUEHLER
          1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 371-4385
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

BAYADA HOME: Bid for Final Certification of Collective Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA IVANOVS and KATIE
HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-01742-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on January 4, 2021, for an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective
Action, on behalf of "all Home Health and Home Care CSMs in all of
the Defendant's locations nationwide."

According to complaint, Bayada admits it treats the members of each
of the two subclasses at issue in this case, Home Health CSM
Opt-Ins (HH CSMs) and Home Care CSM Opt-Ins (HC CSMs) (together CSM
Subclasses), the same for all matters related to their employment.
The same policies, job descriptions, training, compensation models,
rules, and FLSA classification apply to each member of the HC CSM
and HH CSM subclasses.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
          800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

BEANFIELDS PBC: Wightman Sues Over Deceptive Bean Chips Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE WIGHTMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BEANFIELDS PBC, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-10731-CBM-MRW (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020) arises out of the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unlawful practices with
respect to its marketing and sale of its Beanfields Bean Chips in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California's
False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law.

The complaint contends that the Defendant attempts to perpetuate
the deception by prominently making protein claims on the Principal
Display Panel and the back of the packaging while also omitting the
Percent Daily Value for protein in the Nutrition Facts panel on the
products' labels. Further, the Defendant omits a required
disclosure statement concerning total fat which puts the fiber
claims in proper context in violation of federal regulations.

The Plaintiff and reasonable consumers believed that the products
contained accurate label information and representations. They
would not have purchased the products if they had known about the
misrepresentations and omissions, or would have purchased them on
different terms, the suit says.

Beanfields PBC, doing business as Beanfields Snacks Corporation,
manufactures snacks. The Company offers variety of bean chips and
other related snacks, as well as provides online services.
Beanfields Snacks serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 428
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 227-3998
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Suite 102
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (888) 412-5291
          E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

BELLE TIRE: Schmitt Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCHMITT, Plaintiff v. BELLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-13151-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., December 1,
2020) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against the Defendant to challenge
its alleged unlawful compensation policies and practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from on or around November
16, 2018 to November 2020 as an Alignment Technician whose primary
job duty is repairing and replacing tires and aligning wheels on
automobiles.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated technicians and mechanics regularly work more than 40
hours per workweek without being paid their overtime compensation
at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
they work in excess of 40. The Defendant allegedly operates under a
common scheme to deprive its employees of proper overtime
compensation by paying them less than what is required under the
law.

Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. provides automotive parts and
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 N. Main St., Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Tel: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
                  hollander@bwlawonline.com


BETTER PRODUCE: Court Issues Protective Order in Santiago FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANUEL DE JESUS ALTAMIRANO-SANTIAGO, LUCIO
MENDOZA-CASTRO, FREDI SAUL CANSECO-VASQUEZ, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BETTER PRODUCE, INC., RANCHO DEL MAR,
INC., C.J.J. FARMING, INC., and JUAN CISNEROS, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-3964 DDP (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order to Limit Disclosure of
New Plaintiffs and for an Additional Order of Protection.

The Plaintiffs are agricultural workers imported from Mexico by the
Defendants to work in their strawberry fields.  The Defendants are
Rancho del Mar, Better Produce, C.J.J. Farming, all California
corporations with their principal place of business in Santa Maria,
California, and Cisneros, CEO of all corporate Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs bring the action against the Defendants claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), violations of
California's Labor Code, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and breach of contract.

On July 30, 2019, the Court granted conditional certification of
the FLSA action and approved the proposed FLSA notice to putative
opt-in members.  On Nov. 4, 2019, it heard oral argument on the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed by pseudonym.  On Nov. 13,
2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed by
pseudonym concluding that, although the Plaintiffs had not
presented a clear picture of the Defendants' alleged threats to
putative class members to obtain the more than 100 opt-outs, the
Defendants did not provide a credible explanation for the volume of
"voluntary" opt-outs they had collected.  The Court ordered that
future opt-ins and opt-outs be filed under seal and ordered the
Defendants' counsel not to reveal the names of opt-ins or opt-outs
to their clients.

On Jan. 27, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the Court's Nov. 13, 2019 Order.  The Plaintiffs
sought to modify the November 13 Order to order the defense counsel
not reveal the name of litigants to third parties and to instruct
their clients not to communicate with individuals participating in
the litigation, not to attempt to interfere in the assertion of
claims, and not to request current or former laborers to complete
opt-out forms or other documents in opposition to the litigation.


Their motion to modify was based on the Defendants' conduct of
retaining an attorney who had not appeared for the action, who had,
together with them, prepared and obtained numerous G-01
substitution of counsel forms in which opt-ins purported to proceed
pro se.  The Defendants did not deny the allegations.

Despite the troubling conduct, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion without prejudice concluding that their requested remedies
were misdirected -- it declined to the counsel attorneys how to
counsel their clients on requirements that govern client conduct.
It noted that nothing in its order prevented the Plaintiffs' from
seeking future relief.

The Plaintiffs' now move for a protective order providing as
follows: (1) directing the Defendants not to communicate with any
Plaintiffs or class members; and (2) ordering that the Defendants'
present counsel and their partners and associates, including the
attorney who prepared the withdrawal forms, Mario Juarez, and his
partners, associates, and staff, may not receive any identifying
information for current Plaintiffs or class members.  Finally,
should the Defendants choose to retain new counsel, the Plaintiffs
seeking an order requiring (3) any future counsel for the
Defendants be ordered not to communicate any identifying
information concerning the Plaintiffs or the class members to the
Defendants, associates of the Defendants, former counsel for the
Defendants, or outside counsel for the Defendants who have not
appeared in the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have contacted litigants,
required current workers and putative class members to sign letters
of support/withdrawal, and used attorneys to obtain withdrawal
forms from represented parties.  According to them, the Defendants
have also engaged in threats of violence and even death to control
their immigrant farm labor workforce.  They put forth evidence that
opt-ins fear harm to themselves and their families in Mexico.
Thus, they argue, the November 13 Order has been insufficient to
protect the FLSA and putative class.

The Defendants deny making any of the alleged threats to or against
any litigant, potential litigant, or their family.  As to the
requested protective order language itself, they argue that the
proposed order is not narrowly tailored because there is no
allowance for formal discovery or the fact that many of the
Plaintiffs, the opt-in Plaintiffs and the putative class members
still work for Defendant Rancho Del Mar.

Judge Pregerson concludes that the protective measures are
necessary in light of the strong evidence of coercive conduct
presented.  The severity and the likelihood of harm is significant
because of the Plaintiffs' vulnerable status, the engagement of an
outside attorney, and is evidenced by the high number of opt-outs.
Having already ordered less onerous alternatives—providing
curative notice and allowing opt-ins and opt-outs to be filed under
seal—the court finds that there are no less onerous alternatives
at this stage.  The Defendants have continued to engage in coercive
conduct that undermines the action.  The Judge further finds that
in the absence of judicial intervention, there is a strong
likelihood that the Defendants' conduct will continue unabated.

The Judge is mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that an
order limiting communication should limit speech as little as
possible, consistent with the rights of the parties under the
circumstances.  Nothing in the Order prevents either party from
seeking a modification of terms should the need arise.

The Judge ordered that the Nov. 13, 2019 Order remains in force.
All future opt-in and opt-out names will be filed under seal and
will be disclosed for attorneys' eyes only.  All opt-outs in the
action are deemed void and are vacated.  All individuals who
purport to have opted out remain in the action.  Going forward, no
opt-out will be valid unless done in open court before the Court or
the assigned Magistrate Judge.

The Defendants, their agents, attorneys, attorneys' agents,
employees, and those acting in concert or participation with them
are prohibited from engaging in any communication with any
Plaintiff, putative, existing, or potential, class member
including, putative, existing, or potential FLSA class member
regarding, arising from, or related to, the allegations in the
complaint, including any release of claims unless such
communication is made through counsel for the Plaintiffs.  They are
further prohibited from engaging in any conduct intended to
dissuade any person from participating in the lawsuit, including
any party, potential party, or witness.

Retaliation against any Plaintiff, putative, existing, or potential
class member, including any putative, existing, or potential FLSA
class member in connection with the lawsuit is prohibited.

Willful violation of the Order may result in sanctions including,
but not limited to, imprisonment, fine, striking the answer, or
other sanction that the Court finds appropriate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyoouvqw from Leagle.com.

                             Further Orders

Judge Pregerson issued minute orders in chambers on Oct. 9, 2020,
that (i) the deadline for the disclosure of Plaintiffs and
Defendants expert report will be December 15, 2020; (ii) the
deadline for Class Certification will be February 15, 2021; (iii)
the deadline for the close of discovery will be March 15, 2021; and
(iv) the deadline for dispositive motions will be April 15, 2021.

In November 2020, the Plaintiffs filed separate applications to
compel subpoena responses from (1) Mario Juarez and Cynthia
Thompson and (2) non-party Verizon Wireless.

The Court issued separate orders on Nov. 13, 2020 and Dec. 9, 2020,
granting the Plaintiffs' Applications to Compel. Verizon is ordered
to produce all responsive documents in compliance with the terms of
the subpoena from the Plaintiffs.


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Facing Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
is a defendant in a purported shareholder class action suit related
to the clinical trials and Biologics License Application (BLA) for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec.

On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President of Worldwide Research and Development and its Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging
violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and BLA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec by purportedly failing to disclose that
differences between the Company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical
studies limited the ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support
valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect and, as a result,
that it was foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
would not approve the BLA without additional data.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.

BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we
intend to vigorously defend this action."

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that
specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various
medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company
is based in San Rafael, California.

BOOKPAL LLC: Angeles Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bookpal, LLC. The
case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bookpal, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09918-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Judge Ronnie Abrams is assigned to the case.

Bookpal's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
books, periodicals and newspapers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

C&S PLASTICS: Valle Sues Over Line Operators' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DEL VALLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C&S PLASTICS, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and CHRIS COOPER, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-02812-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla., November 30, 2020) is brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2017 to November 13, 2020 as a full-time line operator.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not pay him overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly
rate although he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
for the Defendants for approximately three years.

C&S Plastics, Inc. manufactures plastic products. Chris Cooper is
the owner and operator. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL INTERIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rosales Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO ROSALES; and HECTOR JOSE POLANCO-ALVAREZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL
INTERIOR CONTRACTORS, INC.; GTO DRYWALL, INC.; and RDIC, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00916 (E.D. Va., Dec. 1, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

Capital Interior Contractors, Inc. provides general contracting
services. The Company offers light gauge metal framing, drywall,
plastering, acoustical and metal ceilings, and carpentry services.
Capital Interior Contractors serves government, healthcare,
educational, historical, and private sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Nadas, Esq.
          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          777 6th Street, NW – Eleventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 899-2991
          E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


CARBONITE INC: Construction Industry Appeals Judgment to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust
filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated October
22, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled RUBEN A. LUNA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CARBONITE, INC., MOHAMAD S. ALI, and ANTHONY FOLGER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a securities class action, brought by and on behalf of Lead
Plaintiff Construction Industry and Laborers' Joint Pension Trust
and other similarly situated holders of common stock of Defendant
Carbonite, Inc., alleging that Defendant Carbonite and two of its
officers, Defendants Mohamad S. Ali and Anthony Folger, made
materially false statements that misled investors in violation of
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Judgment where Counts I and II of Plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND
LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST Plaintiff-Appellant; RUBEN A. LUNA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
VALERIE COSGROVE, derivatively on behalf of CARBONITE, INC.,
WILLIAM FENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CARBONITE, INC., MOHAMAD S. ALI, ANTHONY
FOLGER Defendants-Appellees, LINDA CONNLY, MARINA LEVINSON,
Defendants, Case No. 20-2110, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, November 30, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are
due on December 14, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff RUBEN A. LUNA, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Maha, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -   

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Robert D. Gerson, Esq.
          Philip T. Merenda, 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
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  rgerson@rgrdlaw.com
                  pmerenda@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee ANTHONY FOLGER is represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Immanuel Foster, Esq.
          Alisha Q. Nanda, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
                  immanuel.foster@skadden.com
                  alisha.nanda@skadden.com

CASSA GROVE: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASS GROVE 28, LLC d/b/a ZOI HOUSE
APARTMENTS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-020102 (Fla. Cir., December
1, 2020) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed a call to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using a prerecorded message
after the Plaintiff called the Defendant's business telephone
number on or about September 24, 2020 with no answer. The Defendant
allegedly "scraped" the Plaintiff's telephone number from the
Plaintiff's inbound call without his permission, and then made a
return call to advertise and promote its rental condominium and
solicit business from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff assert that he
never provided the Defendant with his prior express written consent
to be contacted on his cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) or prerecorded message.

CASS Grove 28, LLC d/b/a Zoi House Apartments offers condominium
for rents. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


CEVA LOGISTICS: Aldape Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEONARDO ALDAPE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC.; CEVA
FREIGHT, LLC; CEVA FREIGHT MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CIV 04865, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on December 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08713-KAW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to
pay vacation wages, failure to indemnify business related expenses,
failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to
timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition.

CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. is a provider of trucking transportation
services, freight forwarding, contract logistics, warehousing,
customs house brokerage, and ground delivery, with its principal
place of business located in Houston, Texas.

CEVA Freight, LLC is a freight management services company based in
Houston, Texas.

CEVA Freight Management International Group, Inc. is a company that
offers freight management, warehousing, inventory management,
cargo, and logistic services, headquartered in Houston, Texas.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
         Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Fraser.Mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
                 Mariko.Ashley@jacksonlewis.com

CHANGYOU.COM: ODS Capital Sues Over Misstatements and Omissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
ODS Capital LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Changyou.Com Limited, Sohu.Com Limited, Sohu.Com (Game)
Limited, Changyou Merger Co. Limited, Xiao Chen, Charles Zhang,
Joanna LV, Case No. 1:20-cv-05973 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020), is
brought on behalf of itself and the other former ordinary
stockholders and owners of American Depository Shares ("ADS") of
Changyou, except the Defendants and their affiliates, against the
Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and regulations promulgated thereunder, in connection with a
merger between Changyou and Changyou Merger Co. Limited and seeks
to remedy the harm to Changyou ADSs holders and sellers during the
Class Period relating to the numerous material misstatements and
omissions alleged.

Sohu.com was Changyou's controlling stockholder at all relevant
times. As of February 2020, Shou.com beneficially owned the
entirety of the outstanding Class B shares (70.3 million) and some
Class A shares (1.5 million), resulting in Sohu.com controlling
95.2% of the outstanding votes but only 66.9% of the economic
interest in Changyou. On January 24, 2020, Changyou, Sohu.com
(Game) Limited, Sohu.com, and Merger Co. entered into an agreement
and plan of merger, whereby Merger Co. agreed to merge with and
into Changyou. As part of the Merger, Shou.com agreed to acquire
the remaining shares it did not own in Changyou for $5.40 per Class
A share and $10.80 per ADS.

On February 14, 2020, Changyou, Sohu.com, Sohu Game, and Merger Co.
jointly filed a Rule 13E-3 Transaction Statement under the
Securities Exchange Act. The Transaction Statement contained false
and misleading statements regarding the existence of dissenters'
rights (also known as appraisal rights) pursuanto Cayman Islands
law. The Transaction Statement is false and misleading because it
provided no support for such conclusion and it is at odds with the
text of the relevant Cayman Islands statute regarding appraisal
rights. Moreover, the Transaction Statement failed to disclose
other rights that may be available to Changyou shareholders under
Cayman Islands law, in clear violation of the federal securities
laws.

On April 17, 2020, the Merger closed without the truth being
revealed. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement Sohu Game, through its
depositary institution acting as paying agent, purchased all
outstanding Changyou ADS shares for $10.80 per share on April 23,
2020, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff ODS Capital LLC was a beneficial owner of Changyou
common stock at the close of the Merger.

Changyou was a publicly-traded gaming company that offered personal
computer and phone application games to consumers in China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          Email: dschwartz@labaton.com
                 fmcconville@labaton.com


CHICKASHA, OK: Blue et al. Sue Over Firefighters' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES D. BLUE, CADE B. BROWN, JAMES R. BROWN, RICKY D. BURNS, JAMES
C. CALHOUN, JOHN M. CLIFT, KELLY T. CROWDER, CHAD E. DAUGHERTY,
JOSHUA L. GREGSTON, BRYAN L. KARNS, DUKE R. KEELING, MICHAEL P.
LOTDAHL, MATTHEW D. MCCOMBS, MATTHEW W. MCNABB, FREDDIE A. MOORE,
DUSTIN P. MYERS, CHARLES M. PEAK, RODNEY K. PETERS, JEFFREY D.
PEYTON, RICHARD T. PRATHER, JONATHAN E. RENEPE, JOHN C. SEYLER,
BLAIR A. SMITH, DAVID D. SMITH, TODD W. SMITH, NICHOLAS C. TIMMONS,
TYLER C. TOMPKINS, TRAVIS K. TRIPLETT, MICHAEL WISE, BRETT WRIGHT,
and DAVE D WRIGHT, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF CHICKASHA, OKLAHOMA,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01210-G (W.D. Okla., December 1, 2020)
is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other
current and former employees similarly situated against the
Defendant for its alleged willful and purposeful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as fire fighters and
emergency responders, who have been regularly assigned to work a
recurring schedule of 24 hours on duty and 48 hours off duty, in
the City of Chickasha's Fire and EMS Department.

According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly suffers or
permits the Plaintiffs to work in excess of the applicable 106-hour
overtime threshold in a 14-day work period plus at least 14 hours
of overtime work beyond the 106-hour overtime threshold. However,
the Defendant failed to pay them accurate overtime compensation at
one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay because the
Defendant failed to incorporate the Longevity Pay into their
regular rate of pay when calculating their overtime compensation.

City of Chickasha is a city in and the county seat of Grady County,
Oklahoma, United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas D. Vernier, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          5601 N.W. 72nd Street, Suite 178-O
          Oklahoma City, OK 73132
          Tel: (405) 843-9675
          E-mail: dvernierlawok@cox.net

                - and –

          Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
          John W. Stewart, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Tel: (202) 833-8855
          Fax: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: djn@mselaborlaw.com
                  jws@mselaborlaw.com


CITATION OIL: Court Orders Filing Fee Payment in Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as E. LYLE JOHNSON
REVOCABLE TRUST, through trustee Everett Lyle Johnson, Jr., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CITATION OIL
& GAS CORP., Case No. 6:20-cv-00452-RAW, the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma requested a
minute order on December 7, 2020 directing the Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee of $402 within seven days or file a Motion for Informa
Pauperis.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the Production Revenue
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members net
revenue interest (NRI) payments pursuant to a voluntary unitization
agreement, which was ratified by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission in Order No. 115668.

Citation Oil & Gas Corp. is a privately-held independent oil and
gas acquisition, development and production company based in
Houston, Texas. [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

CITIGROUP INC: Lim Sues Over $17.43 Billion of Shareholder Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY LIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIGROUP INC., MICHAEL L. CORBAT, JOHN C.
GERSPACH, and MARK A. L. MASON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10360
(S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in order to attract investors and artificially inflate
Citigroup securities prices between January 15, 2016 and October
12, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants willfully or recklessly made
and/or caused Citigroup to make false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's internal controls and risk management
capabilities that failed to disclose the serious and longstanding
inadequacy of the Company's internal controls, data governance,
compliance risk management, and enterprise risk management.

The truth began to emerge on September 14, 2020, when reports
surfaced that regulators were preparing to reprimand Citigroup for
failing to improve its risk-management systems and when an internal
memo sent to the Company's employees revealed for the first time
the Company's disregard for adequate internal controls and
regulatory compliance. Then, on October 13, 2020, Citigroup
reported earnings for the third quarter of 2020, and disclosed that
the Company's expenses increased during the third quarter by five
percent, to $11 billion, due to an increase in costs including a
$400 million fine, investments in infrastructure, and other
remediation costs related to control deficiencies.

These disclosures caused Citigroup's stock price to decline by
$2.20 per share, from $45.88 to $43.68, erasing $4.57 billion in
shareholder value. In total, as a result of the Defendants'
deception relating to Citigroup's internal controls and compliance
systems, $17.43 billion of shareholder value has evaporated and the
Plaintiff and Class members were the ones who suffered from the
Defendants' actions, the suit says.

Citigroup Inc. is a multinational investment bank and financial
services corporation, with its corporate headquarters located at
388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

                 - 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
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

                 - and –

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

CONDUENT INC: Harrington Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE CONDUENT INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-08237-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., Filed March 8,
2019), the Lead Plaintiff Peter J. Harrington asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of:

      "All persons who purchased Conduent Inc. common stock on
      the open market on a United States stock exchange between
      February 21, 2018 and November 6, 2018, inclusive (the
      "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
      "Class")."

      Excluded from the Class are (1) Conduent, Inc. and its
      officers, directors, employees, affiliates, legal
      representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns, and
      any entity in which any of them have a controlling
      interest or are a parent; and (2) Defendants, their
      immediate families, employees, affiliates, legal
      representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and
      assigns, and any entity in which any of them has a
      controlling interest.;

   2. appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
      System, Plymouth County Retirement Association, and
      Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. as
      Class Representatives pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   3. appointing Co-Lead Counsel Bernstein Liebhard LLP and
      Thornton Law Firm LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
      23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Conduent is an American business process services company
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. It was formed in 2017 as
a divestiture from Xerox. The company offers digital platforms for
businesses and governments.

A copy of the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Dec. 7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Kg5bfT at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff are:

          Richard L. Elem, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAN MEYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1029 Teaneck Road, Second Floor
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: (201) 862-9500
          E-mail: relem@janmeyerlaw.com

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff are:

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
          Peter J. Harrington, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  bigin@bernlieb.com
                  pharrington@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          1 Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 531-3933
          E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com

Co-Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

CONSUMER CELLULAR: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER CELLULAR, INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10105 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.consumercellular.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers 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, including the Plaintiff.

Consumer Cellular Inc. provides cellular phones and services. The
Company offers different phone plans, cell phones, and accessories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COTY INC: Continues to Defend Suit over Cottage Holdco Tender Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to a tender offer
by Cottage Holdco B.V.

A purported stockholder class action complaint concerning the
tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. and the Schedule 14D-9,
captioned Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00650-LPS,
was filed by a putative stockholder against the Company and certain
current and former directors of the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, but has not yet been served.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits
certain information, including, among other things, certain
financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of
Centerview Partners LLC.

The plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

A second consolidated purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint concerning the Cottage Tender Offer and the
Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former
directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l., JAB
Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was named
as a nominal defendant.

The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et.al., Case No.
2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint.

After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss
certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and
certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l. from the action.

On August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to
dismiss.

A further scheduling order has not yet been entered.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.

COTY INC: Garrett-Evans Putative Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported stockholder class action suit entitled, Crystal
Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et.al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277.

A purported stockholder class action complaint, alleging violations
of the US securities laws in connection with the P&G beauty brands
acquisition and the King Kylie transaction is pending against the
Company as well as certain current and former officers of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The case, which was filed on September 4, 2020, was captioned
Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et.al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277.


The plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

This case remains at an early stage.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.

CREDIBLE LABS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Nisbett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIBLE LABS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10073 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.credible.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.

Credible Labs Inc operates a consumer finance Marketplace to assist
consumers make more improved financial decisions. The Company's
marketplace enables consumers to compare instant, accurate
pre-qualified rates from multiple financial institutions. Credible
also offers consumers the ability to access instant, pre-qualified
rates for personal loans and credit cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CSRT EXPEDITED: Dueker's Motion for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DUEKER, on
behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. CSRT
EXPEDITED INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-08751-MCS-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiff's
      experts Aaron Woolfson and Dr. Jeffrey S. Petersen; and

   2. denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Because common questions of fact and law do not predominate over
questions affecting only individual drivers, Dueker's Certification
Motion fails and the Court need not address Rule 23's additional
requirements, the Court said. Even accepting his legal theory,
Dueker has insufficient evidence to establish liability on a
class-wide basis, the Court noted.

Dueker seeks recovery on behalf of himself and all California
residents employed by Defendant as a truck driver during the Class
Period of December 27, 2013 through the date of trial.

Dueker also seeks to certify these subclasses:

   a. Minimum Wage Subclass:

      "All California residents employed by Defendant as a truck
      driver during the Class Period who logged sleeper berth
      shift segment time within the territorial boundaries of
      California during which there was some truck movement;"
      and

   b. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

      "All Minimum Wage Subclass Members who have separated
      their employment with Defendant."

Dueker is a former employee truck driver.  He alleges that CRST did
not pay him for all tasks he performed and for all rest periods.
Dueker avers that CRST's piece rate/mile compensation structure,
calculated by multiplying load miles by the driver’s mileage
rate, did not compensate all hours worked because employees who
worked in "driving teams" were not paid for time spent performing
non-driving tasks.

CRST provides transportation services. The Company offers
transportation services focusing on longer length hauls and
including short-haul regional, air cargo, shipping, and dedicated
fleets. CRST transports cargo worldwide.

A copy of the Court's dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JRIvmo at no extra charge.[CC]

CUTS CLOTHING: Monegro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CUTS CLOTHING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10317-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website,
www.cutsclothing.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates 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 website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a clothing company that owns and operates
www.cutsclothing.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CVS HEALTH CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Consolidated with Nos. PC-2019-5658, PC-2019-6685 (R.I. Super.),
Judge Brian P. Stern of the Superior Court of Rhode Island,
Providence, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (ii)
stayed the case in favor of the first-filed actions.

In May 2015, CVS announced its acquisition of Omnicare, Inc., a
nationwide provider of pharmaceutical services in assisted living
and long-term care ("LTC") facilities.  The acquisition of Omnicare
was complete on Aug. 18, 2015, and Omnicare's operations -- other
than its specialty pharmacy business -- were integrated into CVS'
newly named Retail Long-Term Care Segment ("Retail/LTC Unit").  In
connection with the acquisition, CVS recognized "goodwill" of
approximately $9.1 billion; $8.7 billion was allocated to the
Retail/LTC Unit and $6.5 billion was specifically allocated to the
LTC Unit.

In the following years, the "goodwill" attributable to the LTC Unit
in connection with the Omnicare acquisition became impaired.  The
Plaintiffs allege that CVS's poor customer service and negative
trends impacting the LTC industry as a whole prevented the Omnicare
business from growing as anticipated.  

On Jan. 4, 2018, CVS filed a draft Form S-4 (the Registration
Statement) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which
registered shares to be issued and exchanged in connection with the
Aetna Merger.  On Feb. 9, 2018, CVS filed a final amendment to the
Registration Statement and it became effective.  On Feb. 9, 2018,
CVS filed a final amendment to the Registration Statement and it
became effective.  The Registration Statement included, inter alia,
a final prospectus for the CVS shares issued and exchanged in the
Merger and incorporated by reference in the 2017 Q3 Form 10-Q and
the 2017 Form 10-K ("Offering Documents").

In March 2018, both CVS and Aetna's shareholders voted to approve
the Merger and, on Nov. 28, 2018, CVS issued approximately 274.4
million new shares of common stock to former Aetna Shareholders.
The Offering Documents also contained expert opinions prepared by
the Advisor Defendants.  Specifically, the Advisor Defendants
represented to Aetna shareholders that the merger consideration was
fair, from a financial point of view, to Aetna shareholders.  They
also opined in the Offering Documents that they had conducted
adequate due diligence regarding the operations and financial
condition of the companies.

Now, the Plaintiffs allege that the Offering Documents were
negligently prepared and contained misstatements and omissions of
material facts.  Namely, they allege that the statements concerning
CVS' testing for goodwill impairment and the fair value of goodwill
allocated to the LTC Unit were materially false and misleading.
They assert that CVS should have performed an interim goodwill
impairment test because the goodwill values reported in the
Offering Documents was stale.

Through the instant action, the Plaintiffs represent a putative
class of all persons who acquired CVS common stock pursuant to the
Merger and traceable to the Offering Documents.  They claim that
the CVS Defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 because the Offering Documents contained misstatements and
omissions of material facts which made the Offering Documents
misleading.  Plaintiff Freundlich also asserts that the Advisor
Defendants violated Section 11 of the 1933 Act by providing expert
opinions in the Offering Documents and representing that the Merger
was fair and that the Advisor Defendants had conducted due
diligence.

The Plaintiffs also claim that the CVS Defendants violated Section
12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act by promoting and selling CVS shares to
them by means of the defective Offering Documents.  Plaintiff
Freundlich also asserts that the Aetna Defendants violated Section
12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act by soliciting the putative class to vote
in favor of the Merger and to sell their Aetna shares and purchase
CVS common shares in connection with the Merger.  Lastly, the
Plaintiffs claim that the Individual CVS Defendants violated
Section 15 of the 1933 Act by participating in the alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act by signing
or authorizing the signing of the Offering Documents and
participating in the Merger process.

On June 11, 2020, the Court heard from all parties.  Before the
Court are the following Motions to Dismiss the Complaint: (1)
Defendants CVS, Larry Merlo, David Denton, Eva Boratto, David
Dorman, Richard Bracken, C. David Brown II, Alecia DeCoudreaux,
Nancy-Ann DeParle, Anne Finucane, Jean-Pierre Millon, Mary
Schapiro, Richard Swift, William Weldon, and Tony White's
("Individual CVS Defendants")'s; (2) Defendants Lazard Freres & Co.
LLC and Allen & Company LLC ("Advisor Defendants")'s Motion to
Dismiss; and (3) Defendants Fernando Aguirre, Mark T. Bertolini,
Frank M. Clark, Molly J. Coye, Roger N. Farah, Jeffrey E. Garten,
Shawn M. Guertin, Ellen M. Hancock, Richard J. Harrington, Edward
J. Ludwig, and Olympia J. Snowe ("Aetna Defendants")'s Motion to
Dismiss.  The CVS Defendants, Advisor Defendants, and Aetna
Defendants move to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint filed by City
of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and David Freundlich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The Aetna Defendants move to dismiss Count IV, which is asserted by
Plaintiff Freundlich and alleges that they are liable for the
alleged misstatements and omissions in the Offering Documents
pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Act.  They argue, inter
alia, that Count IV must be dismissed because the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over the Aetna Defendants.

Judge Stern finds that Plaintiff Freundlich has failed to make a
prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction over the
Aetna Defendants.  The fact that subsequent to the Merger, Aetna
became a wholly owned subsidiary of a Rhode Island company and four
of the Aetna Defendants were added to the CVS Board of Directors is
not a relevant contact for purposes of specific jurisdiction.  Any
post-Merger events are not related to Plaintiff Freundlich's claim
that the Offering Documents contained material misstatements or
omissions.  Accordingly, the Aetna Defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

The CVS Defendants, joined by the Aetna Defendants and the Advisor
Defendants ("Defendants"), move to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint, arguing that it is duplicative of class actions filed in
other jurisdictions.  Specifically, they contend that the Court
should dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in favor of other
earlier-filed class actions pending in Rhode Island federal court
and New York state court.  The Plaintiffs object, arguing that the
other pending class actions assert claims under different statutes
and involve predominantly different parties, that the
"first-to-file" rule is inapplicable in the context of parallel
suits pending in two different state courts, and that the balance
of convenience favors maintaining the instant action.

Based on the Supreme Court's recognition of the "first-to-file"
rule as between two sister state court actions -- along with its
explicit recognition of the analogous doctrine of forum non
conveniens -- and the wide recognition of the rule across both
federal and state courts, the Jugde finds that application of the
"first-to-file" rule is appropriate in the instant matter.  He
holds that Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp. and Labourers' Pension Fund
of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp. are first-filed
actions which substantially overlap with the instant action, and
the Plaintiffs have not proven that an exception to the first-filed
presumption applies.  As such, the action is stayed in favor of the
first-filed actions.

Based on the foregoing, the Aetna Defendants' motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is granted, the Court rules. The
Defendants' motion to stay the instant proceeding in favor of the
first-filed actions is also granted.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y424wsw2 from Leagle.com.

Thomas W. Lyons, III, Esq., for City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System.

Robert M. Duffy, Esq. -- rduffy@duffysweeney.com -- and Stephanie
F. Friedel, Esq. -- sfriedel@duffysweeney.com -- for David
Freundlich, For Plaintiff.

Rachelle R. Green, Esq. -- rgreen@cgdesq.com; Robert Corrente, Esq.
; Brenna A. Force, Esq. -- bforce@apslaw.com; Emily J. Migliaccio,
Esq.; Geoffrey W. Millson, Esq.; Christopher N. Dawson, Esq., For
Defendant.


DAWN FOOD: Potter Suit Wins Conditional Collective Status
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVER FRANKLIN POTTER, v.
DAWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10926-MAG-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order, among
other things:

   1. granting in part Potter's motion for conditional
      certification;

   2. conditionally certifying a collective action class
      consisting of:

      "all former and current manufacturing employees of Dawn
      Food Products, Inc. between April 13, 2017 and the
      present;" and

   3. denying, without prejudice, the motion for conditional
      certification in all other respects.

The Court said, "Contrary to Dawn Food Products' position that
Potter's representations are too conclusory and filled with
speculation, Potter has made at least a modest showing, based on
the declarations provided, to maintain a collective action across
Dawn Food Products manufacturing facilities. Therefore, Potter's
motion is granted as to conditional certification."

Potter alleges that when he worked at the Jackson, Michigan,
facility as a non-exempt, hourly manufacturing employee, he was not
compensated for (1) donning and doffing personal protective
equipment, (2) retrieving tools necessary to perform his work, (3)
walking to and from his assigned area of the manufacturing floor,
and (4) performing his manufacturing work after the end of his
shift. Potter contends that numerous current and former Dawn Food
Products employees are similarly situated to him in regard to their
claims for unpaid wages and damages.

Dawn Food Products manufactures bakery products and mixes for
bakeries, grocery stores, and other establishments at its eight
manufacturing facilities. It has approximately 1,830 hourly,
non-exempt manufacturing employees who have worked at its
facilities since April 2017.

A copy of the Court's order granting, in part, the motion for
conditional certification dated Nov. 24, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qCfqfo at no extra charge.[CC]

DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT: Court Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Ali
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SABID ALI, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A157104
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order denying
the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration.

The Appellant is an expedited less-than-truck load carrier that is
in the business of managing, coordinating, and scheduling expedited
LTL shipments across the country.  It has locations throughout
California and the United States.  The vast majority of the
Appellant's work involves interstate transport.

For pick-up and delivery services, the Appellant contracts with
independent truck drivers.  Although the freight transported by
these truck drivers is predominantly interstate freight, it also
includes intrastate freight.  The Appellant's independent
contractor truck drivers in California, including the Respondents,
only provided pick-up and delivery services within the state of
California and the Respondents never crossed state lines in moving
freight for the Appellant's customers.

Respondents Ali and Bland each entered into an "Independent
Contractor Service Agreement" before beginning to drive freight for
the Appellant, and regularly signed materially identical Agreements
or contract extension addenda over the time they drove for it.  All
of the Agreements respondents signed contained an identical
arbitration provision. Ali worked for the Appellant from 2007 to
September 2016, and Bland worked for the Appellant from August 2014
to January 2018, as pickup and delivery drivers.

On Aug. 2, 2018, the Respondents filed a complaint against the
Appellant on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
California delivery drivers, requesting relief from its unlawful
misclassification of former and current Daylight delivery drivers
as Independent Contractors, and alleging that, as a result of the
misclassification, the Appellant had violated a number of Labor
Code and wage order provisions, as well as the law against unfair
competition.

The causes of action included (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2)
failure to reimburse employment expenses; (3) unlawful deductions
from wages; (4) failure to provide off-duty meal periods; (5)
failure to provide off-duty paid rest periods; (6) failure to
furnish accurate wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; and
(8) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.

On Oct. 19, 2018, the Appellant filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay the underlying action, arguing chiefly that
(1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied to the Agreements
between the parties and the FAA's exemption for transportation
workers engaged in interstate commerce was inapplicable to
respondents, and (2) under the FAA, the arbitration provision
applied to the claims asserted in respondents' lawsuit, respondents
had agreed to arbitrate those claims, and no grounds--including, in
particular, unconscionability--existed for revocation of the
arbitration provision.

On Nov. 26, 2018, the Respondents filed a first amended complaint,
adding a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act,
based on the Appellant's alleged Labor Code violations.

On March 1, 2019, the trial court denied the Appellant's motion to
compel arbitration and stay the action, after finding that the
arbitration provision in the Agreements was unenforceable.  First,
the court found that the FAA did not apply to the Agreements
between the parties because respondents fell within the FAA's
exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate
commerce.  Second, it found that the arbitration provision was both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable and unenforceable
under applicable state law.

On March 26, 2019, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal.  It
challenges the trial court's findings that, under California law,
the arbitration provision in the Agreement between it and the
Respondents is procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and
so permeated with unconscionability that severance of the
unconscionable terms is not possible.

The Appellate Court finds that it is both unnecessary and
inappropriate to determine whether the Respondents were employees
for purposes of unconscionability determination.  Whether or not a
finder of fact ultimately agrees with their allegations that they
were employees, the relationship between them and the Appellant was
characterized by a power imbalance analogous to that of an
employer-employee relationship and was sufficiently similar to that
of an employee-employer relationship to conclude the parties'
arbitration agreement is subject to requirements under Armendariz
v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83,
115.

The Court then holds that because neither the arbitration provision
nor the manner of its presentation to Ali and Bland promoted
voluntary or informed agreement to its terms, the evidence
indicates, at the very least, a moderate degree of procedural
unconscionability.  The Respondents' unconscionability challenge
concerns that it was "artfully hidden" by the Appellant's
incorporation by reference of the AAA rules, which were neither
delineated in the Agreements the Respondents signed nor otherwise
provided to them.  That fact exacerbated the procedural
unconscionability of the arbitration provision by adding an element
of surprise to the already oppressive circumstances of its
formation, requiring closer scrutiny of its overall fairness.

Moreover, because the clause purports to permit the Appellant alone
to seek redress in court, because the rights given to the Appellant
in clause 6.02(c) of the arbitration provision go beyond the
bilateral rights provided by section 1281.8 to parties involved in
the arbitration process, and because the Appellant has provided no
reasonable justification for such a one-sided carve out, the clause
is substantively unconscionable.

Finally, the Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it determined that the terms of the arbitration
provision were "sufficiently unfair" that enforcement should be
withheld.

In light of the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it found the arbitration provision unenforceable
based on one of the generally applicable contract defenses, i.e.,
unconscionability, the Court need not resolve the question of
whether the Respondents are transportation workers engaged in
interstate commerce and therefore exempt from the FAA.

In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's order denying the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration
and staying the underlying action.  Costs on appeal are awarded to
the Respondents.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yyn9g6na from Leagle.com.


DC INTERNATIONAL: Elliot FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as THOMAS ELLIOT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DC INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LINDA
EARLES; and RUSSELL EARLES, Case No. 4:20-cv-02644, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on
December 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 6:20-cv-01591 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated logistics coordinators overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

DC International, Inc. is a service provider for offshore and land
operations in the oil industry, with its principal place of
business in Lafayette, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                   
         
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Curt Hesse, Esq.
         Renu Tandale, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre
         440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
         Houston, TX 77002-1063
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net
                 renu@mooreandassociates.net

DESERT STATE: Protective Order on Cincinnati Depositions Partly OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DESERT
STATE LIFE MANAGEMENT; CHRISTOPHER MOYA, in his capacity as
Receiver for the receivership estate of DESERT STATE LIFE
MANAGEMENT; PAUL A. DONISTHORPE; CAMERON GRAHAM, as trustee for
ANDREW GRAHAM on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 18-981 JCH/SCY (D. N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbough of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico granted in part and denied in part
Cincinnati's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions,
filed July 17, 2020.

In the matter, former clients of Desert State Life Management
("DSLM") and Donisthorpe sued in state court, alleging a class
action against DSLM and Donisthorpe for Donisthorpe's alleged
scheme of stealing client funds invested with DSLM.  Cincinnati
insured DSLM and filed the present declaratory judgment action
against DSLM, Donisthorpe, and the proposed class representatives
(the former clients) to determine if it has a duty to provide
coverage to Donisthorpe and DSLM.

Presently before the Court is Cincinnati's Motion for Protective
Order Regarding Depositions.  The class representative Defendants
seek a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff Cincinnati and sent it
a list of topics for that deposition.  The Plaintiff objects to a
number of the topics as written, proposes revised topics, and
objects to providing one witness, Victor Peters, for two
depositions.  Accordingly, after conferring with the class
representative Defendants, the Plaintiff filed the present motion.
The class representative Defendants filed a response in opposition
on July 31, 2020, and the Plaintiff filed a reply on Aug. 14,
2020.

As an initial matter, in its opening brief, Plaintiff Cincinnati
takes issue with all nine topics provided by the class
representative Defendants and proposes amended language for many
topics.  In response, the class representatives only dispute Topics
One, Four, and Eight and state that Topics Three, Five, Six, Seven,
and Nine are undisputed.  The class representatives assert,
however, that it is superfluous for the Court to rewrite the topic
areas, as requested by Cincinnati.  Plaintiff Cincinnati, on the
other hand, argues that the Court should issue an Order with the
wording it proposed to the class representatives and to which the
class representatives agreed.

With Topic One, the class representatives seek to question
Plaintiff Cincinnati about the underwriting of any policies issued
by You or consideration by You of any policies to be issued by You
for coverage of Donisthorpe; L. Helen Bennett, Judy Mahar, Scott
Kominiak, and/or Liane Kerr, including but not limited to the
Directors and Officers Liability Policy, BCN 0007591 issued by
Cincinnati as described in the Plaintiff's Complaint and attached
as Exhibit 3.

Magistrate Judge Yarbough finds that the Plaintiff presents no
evidence that other policies or coverage exist, or that it would be
an undue burden to discuss other policies or coverage that may
exist for the listed individuals.  Moreover, the class
representative defendants have limited "any policies" to be
policies issued to coverage for a finite set of individuals.  As
such, beyond the temporal limitation to which the Court agrees, the
Plaintiff has not shown good cause to rewrite Topic One to include
a limitation in scope and has not shown that the Topic is overly
broad or irrelevant.  The Judge, therefore, grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion as to Topic One.

Topic Eight seeks testimony on any and "all communications between
you and Donisthorpe; Bennett, Mahar, Kominiak, and/or Kerr, or any
third-party (not including Your lawyers) related to the allegations
in Your Complaint."  The Plaintiff objects because the topic is not
reasonably particular, is open-ended, is overbroad, and is unduly
burdensome.  It seeks to amend the topic to "communications between
Cincinnati and Donisthorpe; Bennett; Mahar; Kominiak, and/or Kerr
regarding Cincinnati's denial of coverage to Donisthorpe and Desert
State alleged in Cincinnati's Complaint."

The Magistrate Judge can envision hypothetical third-party
communications that are not discoverable.  The Plaintiff, however,
has not sought protection from disclosure of a communication with
any particular third-party.  If it seeks protection from disclosure
of a communication with a particular third-party, the Magistrate
will allow the Plaintiff to file a supplement no later than seven
calendar days from the date of the Order that specifically
identifies the third-party with whom it has had a communication
that it asserts is not discoverable.  Absent such a supplement, the
Judge denies the Plaintiff's Motion as to Topic Eight.

In response to the class representative Defendants' initial Rule
30(b)(6) deposition request, Plaintiff Cincinnati advised all the
Defendants that it would produce three witnesses, likely including
Mr. Peters, as representatives.  After receiving that information,
Defendant Donisthorpe also requested to depose Mr. Peters as a fact
witness.  In the present motion, Plaintiff Cincinnati asserts that
Mr. Peters should not be subjected to two full, separate
depositions and seeks a protective order that would require Mr.
Peters to sit for only one deposition, subject to the 7-hour time
limit in the Order Setting Case Management Deadlines and Discovery
Parameters, where he can be questioned as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness
and as a fact witness.  Defendant Donisthorpe did not respond to
the Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, but the class
representative Defendants did, opposing the Plaintiff's request for
a single deposition of Mr. Peters.

The Magistrate Judge agrees that the Defendants should not use two
depositions to harass or unreasonably burden Mr. Peters with
duplicative questions when those questions have no independent
significance depending on whether they are answered in his
representative or individual capacity.  The Judge does not assume,
however, that, for improper purposes, the Defendants are
unnecessarily seeking to depose Mr. Peters twice.  The Judge denies
the Plaintiff's Motion as to the deposition of Victor Peters.  The
Defendants can take two depositions of Mr. Peters, one as an
individual fact witness and one as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, each
subject to the 7-hour time limit in the Case Management Order.  In
taking these depositions, however, the Defendants must remain
cognizant of the capacity in which Mr. Peters is testifying and
tailor their questions accordingly.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Yarbough granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Depositions.
In relation to the disputed topics (One and Eight) the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition will proceed in accordance with the Order.
Regarding Topics Three, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine, the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition will proceed in accordance with the language to
which the parties have agreed.  Finally, the Magistrate Judge notes
that he has stricken Topic Two and that the class representative
Defendants have withdrawn Topic Four.

Thus, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition will proceed as described in the
various topics as follows:

      (1) The underwriting of any policies issued by You or
consideration by You of any policies to be issued by You for
coverage of Donisthorpe; Bennett, Mahar, Kominiak, and/or Kerr,
including but not limited to the Directors and Officers Liability
Policy, BCN 0007591 issued by Cincinnati as described in the
Plaintiff's Complaint and attached as Exhibit 3.  The Magistrate
limited the temporal scope to policies issued in 2005 or
thereafter.

      (2) Stricken.

      (3) The facts that Cincinnati believes supports the claims
made in Count I, Count II, Count III, and Count IV of the Amended
Complaint.

      (4) Withdrawn.

      (5) Part 1: The decisions made by Cincinnati related to the
initial issuance of the Policy, subsequent renewals, and coverage
for Donisthorpe and Desert State that is at issue in the Cincinnati
lawsuit.

      (5) Part 2: Cincinnati's policies or procedures or practices
related to attributing a material misrepresentation made by one
insured to co-insured under the Cincinnati Policy at issue in the
lawsuit.

      (6) Your interpretation of the following terms contained in
the Policy that is at issue in the litigation: insured(s); the
insured(s); insured entity; material misrepresentation; and/or
wrongful act.

      (7) Cincinnati's interpretation of language in the Insuring
Agreement of the Policy issued by Cincinnati to Desert State that
is at issue in the lawsuit with respect to the Class Action Lawsuit
that is at issue in the litigation, including without limitation
the language contained in the Insuring Agreement that Cincinnati
will pay on behalf of the 'insureds.'

      (8) Communications between Cincinnati and Donisthorpe;
Bennett; Mahar; Kominiak, and/or Kerr regarding Cincinnati's denial
of coverage to Donisthorpe and Desert State alleged in Cincinnati's
Complaint.

      (9) Information received by Cincinnati regarding the
application misrepresentations and nondisclosures alleged in
Cincinnati's Complaint and Amended Complaint; Cincinnati's
investigation into the application misrepresentations and
nondisclosures alleged in Cincinnati's Complaint and Amended
Complaint; and the process undertaken by Cincinnati to make the
coverage decision alleged in its Complaint and Amended Complaint
regarding the application misrepresentations and nondisclosures
alleged in Cincinnati's Complaint and Amended Complaint.

The Magistrate Judge further denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Protective Order Regarding Depositions as to the deposition of Mr.
Peters.  The Defendants can take two depositions of Mr. Peters, one
as an individual fact witness and one as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness,
each subject to the 7-hour time limit in the Case Management
Order.

The deadline for discovery expired on Aug. 28, 2020, and the case
is set for trial on Jan. 25, 2021.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6jysq3l from
Leagle.com.

          Tentative Settlement Reached

A settlement conference was held before Magistrate Judge Yarbrough
on Oct. 30, 2020.  The Clerk of the Court's minutes of that
proceeding relate that the case is settled in principle, pending
class certification and approval in state court.  Subsequently, by
an order on Nov. 2, 2020, Judge Yarbrough stayed all deadlines in
the case pending the final settlement agreement.


DISH NETWORK: Krakauer Bid to Dismiss Appeal Pending
----------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Krakauer filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury, in that
case, found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
$61 million judgment in favor of the class.  

DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15,
2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari,
requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a
further appeal but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019.  

On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of
appeal relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.  

On June 29, 2020, Krakauer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.  

The district court currently is deciding how to handle the $10.76
million in disbursable judgment funds for which no corresponding
class member was identified, but has indicated that it will not
refund those monies to DISH Network L.L.C.  During the third
quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court.  

DISH said, "We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits."

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.

DISH NETWORK: Trial in Stockholder's Suit vs Ergen to Start in 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in the
putative class action suit entitled, Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B, is scheduled to start sometime during
the five-week "stack" beginning September 7, 2021.

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Charles W. Ergen, the other
members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its
officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches. In
the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11, 2019,
the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board members
other than Mr. Ergen.  

The trial of this matter is scheduled to start sometime during the
five-week "stack" beginning September 7, 2021. Plaintiff seeks
equitable relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Network
Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and other costs and
disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

DISH Network Corporation said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
case, but cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome
of this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages."

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

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Renewed Bid for Class Status Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, et
al., v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-00352-RBW
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      Motion to Stay Class Certification Briefing or, in the
      Alternative, to Extend the Deadline to Respond to
      Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

      This motion is granted to the extent that it seeks to
      vacate the deadline by which the defendant must file its
      opposition to the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
      Action Treatment, pending the Court's resolution of the
      plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Third Amended
      Complaint. This motion is denied in all other respects.

   2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
      for Class Action Treatment;

   3. vacating the motion hearing currently scheduled for
      January 26, 2021; and

   4. directing the parties to appear before the Court for a
      status conference on February 2, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.,
      which will serve as a target date for the resolution of
      the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.

A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JMDmwd at no extra charge.[CC]

EASCARE LLC: Court Dismisses Counts III & IV in Kenn FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE KENN, Plaintiff, v. EASCARE, LLC, MARK E.
BREWSTER, and JOSEPH HUGHES Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10070-ADB
(D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts granted both Eascare's motion to
dismiss Counts III and IV for failure to state a claim, and the
Plaintiff's motion to remand Counts I and II to state court.

On Dec. 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kenn filed a lawsuit against her
previous employer, Eascare, an Eascare manager, Mark E. Brewster,
and her supervisor, Joseph Hughes.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants Eascare and Brewster violated Massachusetts' wage laws
under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148, 150, (Count I), and
that Eascare and Hughes discriminated and retaliated against her on
the basis of sex in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, Section
4, (Count II).  Additionally, she seeks to bring a class action
against Eascare, alleging that Eascare violated two sections of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, ("FCRA"), by running a background check
on her and the others during the hiring process (Counts III and
IV).

Eascare is a Massachusetts company that provides ambulance
services.  In January 2018, the Plaintiff applied for a position as
an emergency medical technician ("EMT") at Eascare.  As part of the
application process, the Plaintiff signed a disclosure form and
authorization for Eascare to perform a background check on her.
The disclosure form provided that Eascare could utilize PT
Research, Inc. to prepare a consumer report or investigative report
under the FCRA.  The Plaintiff executed the forms and was hired by
Eascare.

In August 2018, the Plaintiff became aware that coworkers were
making sexually offensive comments about her in the workplace,
including comments about her health and personal life.  She alleges
that the sexually offensive statements hampered her performance at
work and caused her emotional distress and humiliation.  

On Aug. 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Eascare
regarding these statements.  She alleges that Eascare and Hughes
took no further action to resolve the complaint, however, and
instead retaliated against her and engaged in a pervasive scheme of
adverse employment actions, including unilaterally cutting her pay,
refusing to accept or deny her requests for days off and
subsequently penalizing her for taking a requested day off,
allowing less-senior employees to select their new work schedules
before the Plaintiff after saying that employees could pick based
on seniority, effectively cutting her hours, and threatening to
fire her.  Human resources suggested that the Plaintiff transfer to
another Eascare location.  Upon learning that Hughes was the
supervisor at the location to which she would have been
transferred, however, she resigned from her position on
approximately Oct. 24, 2018.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination.  On June 4, 2019, she filed a
request to withdraw her complaint with the Commission in order to
file a complaint in civil court, and on Aug. 12, 2019, she received
notification that her request had been accepted.

The Plaintiff commenced the action in Norfolk Superior Court on
Dec. 5, 2019.  The Defendants subsequently removed the case to
federal court, and moved to dismiss Counts III and IV under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiff opposed, and on
Jan. 27, 2020, moved to remand Count I and II of the Complaint,
which the Defendants opposed.

The Plaintiff alleges that Eascare violated the FCRA both by
including a liability waiver and other extraneous language on the
stand-alone disclosure form and by subsequently running a
background check without proper authorization.  Eascare argues that
she lacks standing to bring a claim because she has failed to
allege that any FCRA violations caused her to suffer a sufficiently
concrete or particularized injury.  The Plaintiff responds that the
violation of the FCRA is sufficient to constitute an injury because
her privacy was invaded.

Judge Burroughs finds that the Plaintiff's allegation of an
informational injury fails because she has not alleged that the
extraneous language, allegedly contained in the Disclosure Form,
caused any actual confusion about whether her personal information
would be made available for a background check.  She also finds
that because the Plaintiff consented to the report and has not
sufficiently pled that she suffered an informational injury in that
she misunderstood the form, or the subsequent authorization, the
Plaintiff cannot sustain an argument for an invasion of privacy.
The Plaintiff signed the authorization and has not sufficiently
alleged confusion, distraction, or misunderstanding of the form.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts III and IV is
grated without prejudice.

Having determined that the Plaintiff's claims under federal law
must be dismissed for want of standing, the Judge exercises
discretion and elects not to consider the Plaintiff's supplemental
state-law claims, which arise under Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 149, Sections 148 and 151B.  Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.  The Judge does not find, and the
parties have not raised, any unusual circumstances that would
counsel against declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims.  As a matter of judicial efficiency,
Judge Burroughs therefore remands the case to state court for
consideration of the state-law claims.  Thus, the Plaintiff's
motion to remand Counts I and II is granted.

The Plaintiff argues that attorneys' fees and costs are appropriate
as the Defendants removed from state court on the basis that the
Court had subject matter jurisdiction and then moved to dismiss for
lack of standing.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff is not
entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.  Removal was appropriate, as
the FCRA raises federal question jurisdiction, and the subsequent
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under the FCRA and remand of
her state law claim was not so one-sided as to have made remand a
foregone conclusion, especially as circuits have split on the issue
of what constitutes necessary harm under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A).
Therefore, the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y62c2qj5 from
Leagle.com.


EASTERN MUSHROOM: Bi-Lo Loses Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants. IN RE
MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action Nos.
15-6480, 06-0620 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) denied
Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC's request for additional time for discovery,
(ii) granted summary judgment to the Defendants and Creekside on
Bi-Lo's claims for damages, (iii) denied summary judgment on
Bi-Lo's claim for injunctive relief, and (iv) denied Bi-Lo leave to
remove claims from the class action settlement.

Bi-Lo Holdings has sued the Defendants in the case, alleging that
they violated antitrust law by conspiring to raise the price of
fresh agaricus mushrooms.  Bi-Lo has accused the Eastern Mushroom,
its members, and various affiliates of unlawfully colluding to
inflate the price of fresh agaricus mushrooms.

The case is one of a related series of actions dealing with alleged
price fixing and collusion in the market for fresh agaricus
mushrooms.  It all began in February 2006, when WM Rosenstein &
Sons Co. filed a class action complaint, alleging that various
players in the mushroom industry colluded to inflate the price of
mushrooms by agreeing on minimum prices and by decommissioning
various mushroom farms in order to reduce mushroom supply. That
complaint was later consolidated with six similar class actions,
and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on November 13,
2007.

On Dec. 7, 2015, Bi-Lo, along with co-Plaintiff Winn-Dixie,
initiated the action.  Their complaint was similar in all
meaningful respects to the ones that preceded it.  In the
Complaint, Bi-Lo stated that the Plaintiff purchased Agaricus
mushrooms directly from one or more Defendants.  On Jan. 22, 2019,
Bi-Lo filed an Amended Complaint that alleged the same.

In the consolidated class action, the Court certified a class of
direct purchasers on Nov. 22, 2016.  On Feb. 14, 2018, it granted
preliminary approval for a settlement between Defendants Creekside
and Kitchen Pride and the class, and on March 14, 2018, it granted
preliminary approval for a settlement between Georgi and the class.
On March 22, 2018, the Court approved the form of Notice to the
class members, notifying them that if they wished to be excluded
from the class, and by extension the settlements, they needed to
opt out by July 28, 2018.  The only opt-outs were Winn-Dixie,
Bi-Lo, Publix, and Giant Eagle -- C&S remained in the class.  The
Court granted final approval of the settlement between the class
members and Creekside, Kitchen Pride, and Giorgi on Dec. 17, 2018,
entering final judgment on the class' claims against those
Defendants.

On June 28, 2019 -- nearly a year after C&S declined to opt out of
the class -- C&S and Bi-Lo entered into an Agreement for Assignment
of Antitrust Claims.  The assignment was brought to the attention
of (at least some) Defendants a month later.  On July 18, 2019,
Bi-Lo and Winn-Dixie moved the Court to consolidate their case for
trial with opt outs Publix and Giant Eagle.  On July 25, 2019,
Giorgi filed a memorandum in opposition, in which it argued, among
other things, that a key question in the Winn-Dixie matter will be
whether Winn-Dixie Plaintiffs directly purchased fresh agaricus
mushrooms from the Eastern Mushroom Marketing Collective or any of
its members.  By way of rebuttal, Bi-Lo produced the agreement
assigning C&S' antitrust claims to Bi-Lo—first in an email with
the counsel for Certain Defendants and Giorgi, and then as an
exhibit to its reply to Giorgi's response.

On Aug. 19, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement between the class and the remaining Defendants, giving
any class member until Oct. 25, 2019 to object.  No objections
came, and the Court granted final approval of the settlement on
Jan. 9, 2020, entering final judgment on the class' claims that
same day.

Now before the Court are four interrelated motions.  First, all the
Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the
bar to antitrust damage actions by indirect purchasers outlined in
the Supreme Court's opinion in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, Bi-Lo
cannot maintain an action for damages because it did not purchase
mushrooms directly from an alleged conspirator.  The Defendants
further claim that the fact that C&S assigned its antitrust claims
to Bi-Lo does not change the equation because the assignment
occurred after C&S failed to opt out of the class, and thus the
assignment did not convey to Bi-Lo the right to pursue damage
claims outside the class action.

Second, Defendant Creekside moves separately for summary judgment,
reiterating the Defendants' arguments about the implications of
Bi-Lo's indirect purchaser status, but adding that C&S could not
have assigned antitrust claims against Creekside to Bi-Lo because
Creekside had settled with the class prior to the assignment.
Third, Bi-Lo, along with its opposition to the merits of
Defendants' and Creekside's motion, has requested additional
discovery on the issue of its indirect purchaser status pursuant to
Rule 56(d).  Finally, Bi-Lo has moved for leave to exclude the
claims assigned to it by C&S from the direct purchaser class.

First, the Court must decide whether to evaluate the summary
judgment motions now or later.  Pursuant to Rule 56(d), Bi-Lo has
requested more time to take discovery on issues relevant to the
Defendants' motion.  The Court has already explained that Bi-Lo is
not entitled to additional discovery under 56(d) in its Order of
June 4, 2020.  It did so after considering a Rule 56(d) declaration
virtually identical to the one presented here. Bi-Lo's current Rule
56(d) declaration contains no information that might upset the
Court's previous reasoning.  Judge Schiller denied Bi-Lo's request
for additional discovery is denied.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that there
is no genuine dispute of material fact that Bi-Lo cannot maintain
claims for damages in this action.  They reason that: (1) Bi-Lo
lacks standing to sue Defendants for antitrust damages based on its
own purchase of mushrooms; and (2) Bi-Lo's claims assigned to it by
C&S were settled and dismissed as part of the settlement of the
class action.

The Judge agrees.  He concludes that there is no genuine dispute
that Bi-Lo cannot maintain an antitrust suit for damages based on
its own purchase of mushrooms because Bi-Lo was an indirect
purchaser and therefore did not accrue antitrust standing as a
result of its own purchases.  Nor is there dispute that Bi-Lo
cannot maintain suit based on the claims assigned to it by C&S, as
those claims were dismissed as part of the settlement of the class
action. As such, Bi-Lo has no damage claims against Defendants that
it may pursue in this action.  On that basis, the Judge granted
grant summary judgment against Bi-Lo and in favor of the Defendants
on all of Bi-Lo's claims for monetary damages.

Creekside has moved separately for summary judgment.  The Judge
holds that there is no factual dispute that Bi-Lo lacks the ability
to sue Creekside for damages.  First, there is no evidence
Creekside or Creekside's alleged coconspirators sold mushrooms to
either Bi-Lo or any middleman with whom Bi-Lo had a cost-plus
contract . As a result, under Illinois Brick, Bi-Lo lacks standing
to sue Creekside based on its own purchase of mushrooms. See supra
III.B.1.  Second, C&S' assignment of claims to Bi-Lo did not
include any claims against Creekside, as Creekside had settled with
the class (of which C&S was a member) six months before the
assignment.  There is thus no genuine dispute of material fact that
Bi-Lo lacks any colorable damages claim against Creekside.

Bi-Lo, as an indirect purchaser, also does have standing to sue for
injunctive relief.  Illinois Brick does not preclude indirect
purchasers from suing for injunctive relief", as the Illinois Brick
Court's concerns regarding the difficulty of calculating damages
and the risk of multiple recovery do not apply to plaintiffs
seeking injunctive relief.  As neither the Defendants nor Creekside
advance any reason why Bi-Lo cannot pursue injunctive relief, the
Judge finds that those claims stand.

Bi-Lo has moved for leave to opt out of the second round of
settlements with respect only to the portion of C&S' direct
purchase claim that is based on C&S' direct purchase of mushrooms
from Defendants and co-conspirators that C&S sold to Bi-Lo.  The
Judge holds that Bi-Lo is wrong for two reasons.  First, Bi-Lo is
simply incorrect when it says that the Court was required to give
class members an opportunity to opt out of the settlement with the
remainder of the Defendants.  Second, neither Rule 6(b) nor
60(b)(1) applies, as Bi-Lo did not fail to remove C&S's claims from
the class due to excusable neglect.  Rather, it never had the
opportunity to do so in the first place—the period for removing
C&S's claims from the class having passed before the claims were
assigned to Bi-Lo.  A litigant cannot "neglect" to take an action
it never had the right or opportunity to take in the first place.
As a result, Bi-Lo is not entitled to an opportunity to remove its
assigned claims from the class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schiller (i) denied Bi-Lo's
request to take additional discovery in order to respond to the
Defendants' and Creekside's motions for summary judgment; (ii)
granted summary judgment for the Defendants as to Bi-Lo's claims
for damages and denied as to Bi-Lo's claims for injunctive relief;
(iii) granted summary judgment Creekside as to Bi-Lo's claim for
damages and denied as to Bi-Lo's claims for injunctive relief; and
(iv) denied Bi-Lo's request for an additional opt out opportunity.

A full-text copy of the Court's District Sept. 1, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y424wsw2 from Leagle.com.


ECOLAB INC: Lindsey Sues Over Harmful Effects of OxyCide Cleaners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVANA LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECOLAB INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-02480-SRN-ECW (D. Minn., December 7,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for strict
liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
design, manufacturing, packaging, and labeling of defective and
dangerous cleaning products, OxyCide Daily Disinfectant Cleaner and
OxyCide Dilution Management System. The Defendants' OxyCide
cleaning products contain dangerous chemicals and compounds that
are known to cause adverse health effects. Despite advance notices
of complications arising from OxyCide cleaning products nationwide,
Defendant Ecolab refused to take affirmative action to analyze,
test, study, and/or recall their products. Instead, Ecolab is
content with endangering countless lives as Ecolab's products
continue to be sold, including to hospitals nationwide.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misrepresentations,
the Plaintiff has been severely harmed by Ecolab's toxic and
hazardous OxyCide cleaning products.

Ecolab Inc. is an American corporation that develops and offers
services, technology and systems that specialize in water
treatment, purification, cleaning and hygiene in a wide variety of
applications, based in St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Timothy Becker, Esq.
         Jacob Rusch, Esq.
         JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
         444 Cedar St., Ste. 1800
         St. Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (612) 436-1800
         Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
         E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                 jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

                 - and –

         Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
         Richard D. McCune, Esq.
         Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
         MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (909) 557-1250
         Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
         E-mail: mmv@mccunewright.com
                 rdm@mccunewright.com
                 tqn@mccunewright.com

ENVESTNET: Bid to Dismiss Wesch Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Deborah
Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK,
is pending.

The Company and Yodlee, Inc., were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by
Plaintiff Deborah Wesch in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs.

The case caption is Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK.

Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial
transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a
mobile application that uses Yodlee's application programming
interfaces (API), and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee
unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties.

The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and
common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal
statutes, including the Stored Communications Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide
class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in
credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner
from 2014 to the present.

The Company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant
in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions
to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint, and they intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Envestnet, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide open-architecture
wealth management services and technology to independent financial
advisors and financial institutions. The Company provides these
services and related technology via its wealth management software.

ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Tipped Employees Class Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO BARCENAS, on
behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v.
ERMINIA RESTAURANT a/k/a ERMINIA CORP. d/b/a LATTANZI RESTAURANT,
VITTORIO LATTANZI, and FRANCO PAUL LATTANZI, Case No.
1:20-cv-01924-LGS (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lorna
G. Schofield entered an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of Plaintiff's claims
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a
      representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b) on behalf of:

      "all current and former non-exempt tipped employees,
      including waiters runners, bussers, and bartenders
      persons, and all persons who underwent a training period
      while employed by Lattanzi Restaurant on or after the date
      that is three years and one hundred and eight days
      (calculated to reflect the below tolling) before the
      filing of the Complaint ("Covered Employees");"

   2. approving the distribution of notice of this FLSA
      action to Covered Employees, and including a consent form
      (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form, to be sent to all non-exempt personnel who
      have worked at Lattanzi Restaurant on or on or after the
      date that is three years and one hundred and eight days
      before the filing of the Complaint;

   4. approving the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be
      sent directly to the Plaintiff's counsel;

   5. directing the Defendants, within 30 days of this Order, to
      produce in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Word format the
      names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and
      all known telephone numbers of all non-exempt employees
      (including front and back of house staff) who have worked
      at Lattanzi Restaurant and who were either tipped and/or
      underwent training on or after the date that is three
      years and one hundred and eight days before the filing of
      the Complaint in this action;

   6. approving the posting of the notice, along with the
      consent forms, in Lattanzi Restaurant where Covered
      Employees are employed, by Plaintiff's counsel at a mutual
      agreeable time during regular business hours;

   7. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of
      limitations between the dates of March 20, 2020 and July
      6, 2020; and

   8. directing all potential collective action members to opt-
      in by mailing or returning the executed consent form
      within 60 days following the date of mailing of the
      notice, which shall be filed by the Plaintiff with the
      Clerk of the Court.

A copy of the Court's order granting conditional collective
certification dated Dec. 9, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oOyS6Q at no extra charge.[CC]

EUPHORIA WELLNESS: Jackson TCPA Suit Venue Moved to Nevada District
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EUPHORIA WELLNESS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03297-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles
R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (i) denied Euphoria's motion to dismiss, and (ii)
granted Euphoria's alternate motion to transfer venue to the
District of Nevada.

In the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") suit, Plaintiff
Jackson commenced a class action against Defendant Euphoria, a
Nevada company that owns and operates a Las Vegas marijuana
dispensary.  Jackson alleges that Euphoria violated the TCPA by
sending her and other putative class members unsolicited
promotional text messages.

Plaintiff Jackson resides in San Francisco, California.  She is the
subscriber and sole user of a cell phone number ending in 5026,
with a California-based area code.  She is financially responsible
for phone service to the phone number, including cellular costs and
data usage incurred as a result of text messages.  Jackson has been
registered with the national Do-Not-Call Registry since 2012.

As part of its marketing, Euphoria sends text messages regarding
sales and promotions to telephone numbers provided to Euphoria by
individuals who visited its dispensary or website.  Its website
contains a statement that patients from California, Arizona and
anywhere else medical marijuana is legal will be able to shop at
Nevada dispensaries while visiting.

Jackson alleges that Euphoria sent "numerous" text messages to her
5026 phone number over the past year for the purpose of marketing
and advertising its business and services.  She alleges that she
has never signed-up for, and has never used, the Defendant's
services, and has never had any form of business relationship with
it.  Further, she contends that she never provided her cellular
number to the Defendant through any medium and did not consent to
receive such unsolicited text messages.  Instead, she alleges that
Euphoria used an automatic telephone dialing system, which has the
capacity to store or generate telephone numbers without human
intervention, to send messages to her 5026 phone number.  Jackson
contends that she was damaged because the messages used her
residential cellular data, phone storage, and battery life, invaded
her privacy, intruded upon her seclusion, and caused her to "become
understandably aggravated" due to the distractions the messages
caused and the time she took to investigate their source.

However, Euphoria responds that Jackson did sign up for its
services.  It asserts that, on Aug. 27, 2015, Jackson, a California
medical marijuana patient, visited Euphoria's Las Vegas, Nevada
dispensary in person, filled out Euphoria's Patient Registration
Form, and voluntarily provided her cellular telephone number to
Euphoria.  The handwritten Patient Registration Form lists
Jackson's name and California address, along with her 5026 phone
number.  

In her Opposition, Jackson neither mentions the Patient
Registration Form nor contests its validity, but reiterates that
Euphoria "never bothered" to obtain her consent before sending the
messages.  At the motion hearing, Jackson conceded that she does
not challenge the authenticity of the Patient Registration Form,
although she disputes its significance.

Jackson filed suit against Euphoria and brought claims for
violations of the TCPA.  She brought her claims as a class action
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and
23(b)(3) on behalf of a "No Consent Class" and a "Do Not Call
Registry Class."  In response to Euphoria's first motion to
dismiss, Jackson filed her First Amended Complaint on July 6, 2020,
with substantially identical claims.

Euphoria now moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, arguing
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction and that venue is
improper.  Alternatively, it moves to transfer venue to the
District of Nevada.  Jackson filed a response in opposition to
Euphoria's motion, and Euphoria filed a reply.

As to the Motion to Dismiss, Judge Breyer finds that because
Euphoria had reason to know that the customer resided in California
and intentionally sent promotional messages to her forum-state
phone number, Euphoria also had reason to know that any harms
caused by the messages would likely be felt in California.  The
Judge therefore holds that the first prong of the test for specific
jurisdiction is met because all three prongs of the purposeful
direction "effects test" are satisfied.

Next, although Euphoria may be correct that the messages it
allegedly sent to Jackson were drafted and sent from Nevada, that
does not mean that those activities were unrelated to the forum of
California.  Jackson's claims would not have arisen but-for the
Defendant's transmission of the text messages.  The Judge therefore
finds that Jackson has met her burden sufficient to meet the second
prong of the specific jurisdiction test.

Because defendants must generally meet a high bar to demonstrate
that the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable, and because
Euphoria has not compellingly surmounted that hurdle, the Judge
finds that jurisdiction would be reasonable in this instance.

Euphoria contends that venue is improper because all events besides
Jackson's alleged receipt of the text messages occurred in Nevada,
including Jackson's alleged visit to the dispensary, Euphoria's
collection of her phone number, and Euphoria's alleged decision to
send the messages.  Jackson counters that if specific jurisdiction
is proper on the basis of Euphoria having sent messages to a
California number, so too is venue.  The Judge cannot say that the
receipt of unwanted text messages is not a substantial part of the
events giving rise to a TCPA claim.  Accordingly, venue is proper.

For these reasons, Judge Breyer therefore concludes that there is
personal jurisdiction over Euphoria and that venue is proper in the
Northern District of California.  The Judge denied Euphoria's
motion to dismiss.

As to Euphoria's alternate motion to transfer venue to the District
of Nevada, the Judge granted it.  Because most putative class
members likely reside in Nevada, along with all of the witnesses
and evidence other than Jackson and her cell phone (and because
Jackson's Patient Registration Form might represent an
insurmountable hurdle to her claim in the case), Euphoria has
overcome its burden in showing that a transfer of venue would serve
the interest of convenience for parties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxt42eg7 from Leagle.com.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doe ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE 1, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOHN DOE 2, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRIAN CORRIGAN, STAMFORD HEALTH,
INC., BROTHERS TRADING CO., INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, KAREN
BURNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BRENDAN FARRELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBERT SHULLICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Consolidated Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., ANTHEM, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 18-346 (2nd Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative
consolidated class action.

The Plaintiffs appeal from the Jan. 5, 2018 opinion and order of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissing their putative consolidated class action against Anthem
and Express Scripts alleging that the two violated their fiduciary
obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") in setting prescription drug prices.

Anthem is a health benefits company that offers its health care
plans both through employers and directly to individual
subscribers.  Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefits manager
("PBM") and is the largest PBM in the United States, with nearly
97% of the pharmacies belonging to its network.  Anthem uses PBMs
to manage the prescription medication programs it offers for health
plans.  The Plaintiffs are certain health care plans regulated by
ERISA that are either administered or insured by Anthem, as well as
people individually enrolled in Anthem health plans who receive
prescription benefits through Express Scripts.

Anthem and Express Scripts entered into a 10-year PBM Agreement on
Dec. 1, 2009.  The PBM Agreement provides that Express Scripts will
process the claims of Anthem participants, both through
brick-and-mortar pharmacies and directly through mail-order
pharmacies.  In addition, Express Scripts provides administrative
services relating to prescription drugs for Anthem's health plans
and participants.  The Plaintiffs allege that at the same time the
parties were negotiating the PBM Agreement, Express Scripts and
Anthem were also negotiating Express Script's purchase of three PBM
companies owned by Anthem: NextRx, LLC, NextRX, Inc. and Next Rx
Services ("NextRx Companies") to Express Scripts ("NextRx
Agreement").

The signing of the PBM Agreement was a condition precedent to the
sale of the NextRx Companies, and the purchase price was linked to
the price Anthem would pay for prescription drugs during the term
of the PBM Agreement. During negotiations, Express Scripts offered
to pay $500 million for the NextRx Companies in exchange for
providing prescription medication at a lower price. Alternatively,
Express offered to pay $4.675 billion for the NextRx Companies, but
would then charge higher prices for prescription medications during
the PBM Agreement.

Anthem chose the latter option. The Plaintiffs allege that in so
choosing, Anthem agreed to allow Express Scripts to charge far more
for prescription drugs than the industry standard. Anthem did so by
agreeing to allow Express Scripts wide, and relatively unfettered,
discretion in setting drug prices. Thus, the Plaintiffs allege,
even though Anthem wielded significant bargaining power, Express
Scripts charges Anthem plans a higher rate for drugs than those
charged by PBMs to other plans -- and those inflated costs are
passed on to the plan subscribers.

The Plaintiffs sued, alleging claims under ERISA, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Affordable Care
Act, as well as a variety of state law torts. Express Scripts and
Anthem both moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. The district court granted the
motions. The appeal followed.

The Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing
their claims under ERISA.  They allege Anthem was acting as a
fiduciary when it negotiated the agreement to sell the NextRx
Companies to Express Scripts for a higher price knowing it would
result in Express Scripts charging a higher price for prescription
drugs. In entering into the PBM Agreement, the Plaintiffs argue,
Anthem exercised its discretion to manage the Plaintiffs'
prescription benefit -- discretion that flowed from Anthem's role
as an ERISA fiduciary.  The district court found Anthem was not
acting in a fiduciary capacity when it entered into the PBM
Agreement.  

The Appellate Court agrees. It previously found that the decision
to sell a corporate asset is not a fiduciary decision -- even if
the sale affects an ERISA plan. Anthem did not act as an ERISA
fiduciary when it entered into the NextRx and PBM Agreements, even
though its decisions may ultimately affect how much plan
participants pay for drug prices.

Similarly, the Appellate Court finds no error with the district
court's finding that Express Scripts was not a fiduciary.  It
agrees with the district court that when a PBM sets prices for
prescription drugs pursuant to the terms of a contract, it is not
exercising discretionary authority and, therefore, not acting as an
ERISA fiduciary. Even fully crediting the Plaintiffs' allegations
that the PBM Agreement provided Express Scripts with
extraordinarily broad discretion in setting prescription drug
prices, at bottom the ability to set such prices is a contractual
term, not an ability to exercise authority over plan assets.

The Court has considered the remainder of the Appellants' arguments
and find them to be without merit.  Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order dated Dec. 7, 2020,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yymtjcmf from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., (Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen
S. Obrist -- gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- David J. Ko --
dko@kellerrohrback.com -- on the brief), in Oakland, California;
and Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of Whatley
Kallas, LLP, in New York City (on the brief), Appearing for the
Appellant.

Glenn M. Kurtz -- gkurtz@whitecase.com -- of White & Case LLP, in
New York City, NY, Appearing for Appellee Anthem, Inc.

Derek L. Shaffer -- derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, (Jonathan G. Cooper --
jonathancooper@quinnemanuel.com -- Andrew S. Corkhill --
andrewcorkhill@quinnemanuel.com -- Michael J. Lyle --
mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com -- Jacob J. Waldman --
jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com -- on the brief), in New York City,
NY, appearing for Appellee Express Scripts, Inc.

Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. -- pondrasik@steptoe.com -- Eric G. Serron --
eserron@steptoe.com -- Osvaldo Vazquez -- jvazquez@steptoe.com --
of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, in Washington, D.C. (on the brief),
appearing for Appellee Express Scripts, Inc.

Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, in Washington, D.C., for amici curiae AARP
and National Appellants: Employment Lawyers Association.

Mary Ellen Signorille, of AARP Foundation, in Washington, D.C., on
the brief, for AARP.

Matthew C. Koski , of the National Employment Lawyers Association,
in Washington, D.C., on the brief, for National Employment Lawyers
Association., Appearing for Amici Curiae in support of Appellant.

M. Miller Baker, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, (Sarah P. Hogarth
-- shogarth@mwe.com -- Eric Hageman, on the brief), in Washington,
D.C., for amici curiae Pharmaceutical Care Management Association,
America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Chamber of Commerce of
the United States of America.

Steven P. Lehotsky, of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in
Washington, D.C., on the brief, for the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America. Appearing for Amici Curiae in support of
Appellee.


FACEBOOK TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10159 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.oculus.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers 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 Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.

Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website. The Company
website allows people to communicate with their family, friends,
and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the
sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos.
Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information
based on their own specific criteria. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Labor Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERNEST CUADRA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; FEDEX, a business entity unknown and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02089, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on November
24, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10719-MWF-PD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage or overtime wages,
failure to provide all legally required and compliant meal periods,
failure to provide all legally required and compliant rest periods,
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, failure
to timely pay unpaid wages due at time of separation of employment,
and unfair business practices.

Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides package delivery
services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and
business addresses throughout North America.

FedEx Corporation is an American multinational delivery services
company. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                  alexander.chemers@ogletree.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Temporarily Stay Allred Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
plaintiffs in Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago
Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty
Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain, Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel
Bond, filed a notice indicating their intent to temporarily stay
this action.

On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain,
Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Plaintiffs seek class certification and consequential, treble, and
punitive damages.

The Named Companies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
several grounds, or alternatively, to stay the case.

The court entered an order dismissing the federal law counts
against the Named Companies without leave to amend, dismissing
other counts with leave to amend, and denied the motion as to the
remaining counts.

Plaintiffs recently filed a notice indicating their intent to
temporarily stay this action.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., incorporated on May 24, 2005, is
a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance,
and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., has been concluded.

In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., originally filed on October 27,
2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters
violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts
in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions.
Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class
refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate
court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance,
an individual issue that precludes certification. After notice to
the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on
liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment.

On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and
denying the Company's motion. The court also determined that a
multiplier of 1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of
damages, if any, proven by class members at trial, and that
Plaintiffs should bear the responsibility of identifying class
members and calculating damages.

The Company's requests for interlocutory appeals of both the
liability and damage multiplier issues were denied. The parties
reached an agreement to resolve the matter on a class wide basis,
and the claims period ended with no objectors.

Final judgment approving the class action settlement was entered,
and settlement payments were completed. This matter is now closed.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., incorporated on May 24, 2005, is
a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance,
and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.

FLINT, MI: Court Issues Case Management Order in Water Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, has entered a fifth case
management order in the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order
Relates To ALL CASES, Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

The purpose of the Order is to effectuate efficiency and limit
duplication in the discovery processes associated with litigation
arising out of claims made regarding the use of the Flint River as
a water source.  Section I (Discovery Coordination Protocol) was
adapted from the Amended Discovery Coordination Protocol Order and
now supersedes that order.

The Order will apply to all cases, currently or in the future,
consolidated or coordinated into the Flint Water Cases before Judge
Levy.  In that regard, it applies to all discovery permitted under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including, without
limitation: (i) depositions noticed under Rule 30; (ii) document
requests and requests to inspect and/or permit entry onto property
issued under Rule 34; (iii) subpoenas duces tecum issued under Rule
45; (iv) interrogatories under Rule 33; (v) motions for physical
and mental examination under Rule 35; and (vi) requests for
admission under Rule 36.

The CMO will not apply to those Defendants who have not filed an
answer, except as otherwise provided by Court order.  Any Defendant
to which the CMO does not apply will be treated as a non-party for
the purposes of discovery, subject to the Defendant's properly
raised objection.  Non-parties who have been previously identified
as Defendants will be entitled to participate in discovery
initiated by other parties.  If and when any such Defendants file
an answer, such Defendants will be entitled to initiate discovery,
the timing and manner of which will then be established by the
Court.

Subject to Section I(C)(2) of the CMO, a witness may be deposed
only once in the Flint Water Cases after the date of the Order,
except by order of the Court based on a showing of good cause or by
agreement of all interested parties.  Depositions that are noticed
in the Federal Flint Water Cases will be noticed pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a proposed date, time, and
location, subject to the provisions of the Order.  Depositions that
are noticed in the State Flint Water Cases will be noticed pursuant
to the Michigan Court Rules for a proposed date, time, and
location, subject to the provisions of the Order.

All parties to the Federal Flint Water Cases will endeavor to avoid
service of discovery in any Flint Water Case that is duplicative of
discovery already served after the date of the Order in another
Flint Water Case.

All counsel in the Flint Water Cases who have not already filed an
appearance in E.D. Mich. Case No. 16-10444 are required to file an
appearance as an interested party in that case.  Any obligation for
service and/or notice for matters covered by the Order will be
satisfied if filed in and served on all counsel listed in 16-10444.


With reference to the written discovery disclosed, the counsel for
the issuing party will supply complete and accurate copies of the
written discovery responses, including any documents, to the extent
that the counsel for any other party request them in writing and
agree to reimburse the counsel providing them for the reasonable
actual cost of providing the copies.  Such written discovery
responses will be delivered to the attorney requesting them within
seven calendar days after the request for them and agreement to
reimburse is made.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y29kayak from Leagle.com.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LEAH COX and D'SHAUNTA PERRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRANCESCA'S
HOLDINGS CORP. and FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-02167, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on December 8, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-18527-RBK-JS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law by failing
to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated store
managers overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

Francesca's Holdings Corp. is a specialty retailer that operates a
chain of boutiques across the United States, with its principal
place of business located at 8760 Clay Road, Houston, Texas.

Francesca's Collections, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Francesca's Holdings Corp., with its principal place of business
located at 8760 Clay Road, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                     
         
         Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
         Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
         Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 447-8888
         Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
         E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                 tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
                 lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

                - and –

         Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
         Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
         David A. Roth, Esq.
         Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
         Janine Kapp, Esq.
         HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
         192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 545-1199
         Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
         E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                 cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                 droth@hgrlawyers.com
                 rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
                 jkapp@hgrlawyers.com

FRANK'S BAY PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Perez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FORTUNATO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANK'S BAY PIZZA, INC. (D/B/A FRANK'S BAY
PIZZA); FRANK DOE; and AGA DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05809
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide
accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Frank's Bay Pizza, Inc. owns and operates a pizzeria, located at
200 Canal St, Staten Island, NY 10304 under the name Frank's Bay
Pizza. [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


FRUIT COMPANY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Fruit Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. The Fruit Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05946 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

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

The Fruit Company -- https://www.thefruitcompany.com/ -- is a fruit
basket delivery companies that providers of gourmet fruit baskets,
gift towers and monthly fruit clubs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com



G4S SECURE: Has 90 Days to File Bid for Snell Deal Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES SNELL, Plaintiff, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA)
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00802-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California ordered the parties to file the
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
within 90 days of the date of entry of the Order.

The action has been stayed at the stipulation of the parties while
they participate in mediation.  On Dec. 3, 2020, the parties filed
a joint status report, which states that they have reached
resolution of the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5krpstz from Leagle.com.


GATE GOURMET: Scott Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLES SCOTT, BRENDA MCCOY, DOMINIQUE FERDINAND,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATE
GOURMET, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV41416, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on December 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11033 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful termination
in violation of public policy, violation of California's Business
and Professions Code, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a global airline catering, retail onboard and
equipment solutions provider based in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq.
         Jill A. Porcaro, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com
                 jporcaro@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Nolan R Theurer, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: ntheuer@seyfarth.com

GEO SECURE: Prison Officers Settlement Class Proposed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN ALVAREZ, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. GEO SECURE SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-80696-WPD (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2020), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
this case as a collective action for settlement purposes only, and
authorizing themselves to inform the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs of
their opportunity to join and participate in the Parties' tentative
settlement.

The Plaintiff proposes a settlement class defined as:

   "Agreed upon hourly Correctional Officers (including
   sergeants) (collectively "COs") who worked for GEO run
   facilities between April 24, 2018 and July 20, 2020
   (Applicable Class Period) and who are not excluded by the
   June 19 Memorandum of Understanding and definition contained
   in the Amended Complaint (Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs)."

On October 20, 2020 the Parties filed their Joint Motion for
Settlement. The Court entered an Order setting oral argument for
November 12 and on November 13, entered an Order Denying Approval
of the Settlement. In an attempt to address some of the Court's
concerns, the Parties have entered into an Amended Settlement
Agreement that provides for conditional certification and notice of
the proposed settlement to the putative class. After the close of
the opt-in period, the Parties again move for approval of the
settlement.

GEO Secure oversees the operation and management of approximately
74,000 beds in 63 secure facilities and processing centers. The
company provides services on behalf of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, as well as 8 state correctional clients and various
county and city jurisdictions.

A copy of the joint motion for class certification dated Dec. 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39ZAMh1
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are:

          Alejandro F. Garcia, Esq.
          RAMHOFER GARCIA & MOORE, PLLC
          11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 742
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 481-9733
          Facsimile: (954) 697-0341
          E-mail: agarcia@rgmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan N. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Arielle S. Eisenberg, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3000
          Miami, Fla. 33131
          Telephone: (305) 704-5941
          Facsimile: (786) 220-0470
          E-mail: seisenberg@cozen.com
                 aeisenberg@cozen.com

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of Transient Tax Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Supreme Court
of the State of Nevada upheld the lower court's 2019 dismissal of
the Transient Lodging Tax-related suit.

On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The STRAT Hotel, Casino &
SkyPod filed a purported class action complaint against the Company
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals and entities that paid the Clark County
Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the portion of a resort fee that
constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period of
February 6, 2014 through the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.

All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit.

The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on February
21, 2019. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Nevada on April 10, 2019.

The Company, and other defendants, filed an appellate response
brief on October 19, 2019. On July 29, 2020 the Supreme Court of
the State of Nevada upheld the lower court's 2019 dismissal of this
case.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

GREATER BALTIMORE: Denial of Class Cert. in Silver Vacated in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an Opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City's judgment denying Silver's motion to certify two
proposed classes in the case titled ENOCH SILVER, III v. GREATER
BALTIMORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3491 (Md. Spec.
App.).

Appellant Silver's lawsuit arises out of three separate requests
for medical records from three unaffiliated hospitals: Greater
Baltimore Medical Center ("GBMC"), Medstar Union Memorial Hospital,
and The Johns Hopkins Hospital.  Silver the hospitals requests for
copies of his personal medical records.  Said hospitals delivered
the requested records, but for considerable prices.

Silver, who paid to receive copies of his medical records from each
of the Appellee hospitals, filed a putative class-action lawsuit
against them. He alleged that the hospitals had violated, and were
continuing to violate, Maryland statutory law by assessing
unreasonable charges for the copies and by engaging in related
illegal and unfair trade practices.

After an unsuccessful motion by the hospitals to dismiss Silver's
complaint and a short-lived removal of the case to federal court,
Silver filed a motion for class certification in the circuit court.
The motion proposed one class for damages and another for
injunctive relief.

The damages class was to include all patients of the hospitals "who
paid, directly or through any agent to any of the hospitals or a
third-party contractor hired to process records requests for access
to or copies of their medical records from Sept. 9, 2013 through
the date of trial in the case." The injunctive-relief class was to
include "all patients of the hospitals whose requests for access to
their records were processed by any of the hospitals or by
third-party contractors hired by the hospitals to process records
requests."

The circuit court denied Mr. Silver's motion to certify two
proposed classes for the action. And because Silver's individual
claims against the hospitals did not meet the circuit court's
amount-in-controversy threshold, the court ultimately granted an
unopposed motion to dismiss his case for lack of jurisdiction.

Silver's brief presents three issues which the Appellate Court has
consolidated into one: Whether the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying the class-certification motion.  Silver's
first argument on appeal is that the circuit court abused its
discretion in declining to certify his proposed damages class under
Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3). He maintains that the circuit court got it
wrong as to the predominance of common issues and the superiority
of the class-action format. Alternatively, he argues that even if
the circuit court's predominance and superiority conclusions were
correct with respect to his proposed class, the court should have
certified subclasses that conformed to the requirements of Md. Rule
2-231.

The Court of Special Appeals holds that none of Silver's arguments
convince it that it was unreasonable for the circuit court to
conclude that the proposed damages class did not satisfy the
predominance requirement of Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3).  The trial
court's conclusion that common issues would not predominate is
wholly consistent with the cases discussed by the parties in their
briefs and by the circuit court in its order denying the motion for
class certification.  Even if it were to conclude that the circuit
court's superiority determination amounted to an abuse of
discretion, certification of Silver's proposed damages class under
Md. Rule 2-231(c) still would have been inappropriate.  Superiority
is one of two preconditions for class certification under Md. Rule
2-231(c)(3).  Moreover, simply dividing Silver's proposed class
into provider-level or schedule-level subclasses may not have been
appropriate in the case.

Silver's second appellate contention is that the circuit court
abused its discretion in declining to certify his proposed
injunctive-relief class under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2).  Because the
circuit court's ruling appears to have resulted from a
misunderstanding of the requirements for class certification under
Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2), the Court of Special Appeals concludes that
the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Silver's motion
to certify his proposed injunctive-relief class under Md. Rule
2-231(c)(2).  That is because courts do not have discretion to
apply inappropriate legal standards, even when making decisions
that are regarded as discretionary in nature.  Accordingly, it will
vacate the judgment of the circuit court in part and remand the
case for the circuit court to decide whether to certify Silver's
proposed injunctive-relief class.

Finally, the parties have identified potentially relevant bases for
the circuit court to either grant or deny certification to an
injunctive relief class.  The Court notes that Silver and the
hospitals are free to raise them again on remand.

In light of the foregoing, the Court of Special Appeals affirms in
part and reverses in part the circuit court judgment, and remands
the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
Costs will be divided evenly between the Appellant and the
Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 7, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5v6s5wd from Leagle.com.


GRIPPO POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grippo Potato Chip
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Grippo Potato Chip
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10250 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

Grippo Potato Chip Company, Inc. -- https://www.grippos.com/home/
-- provides snack foods. The Company offers chip dips, hot pork
rinds, low carb, potato chips, pretzels, and other related snack
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GROUP HEALTH: N.C. Court Narrows Claims in Greenwell ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case titled
JEFFREY GREENWELL, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF
SENSUS USA, INC.; and BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-CV-577-FL (E.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on July 19, 2019,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA").  The claims arise out of Defendant Blue Cross'
denial of coverage for the Plaintiff's claim for medical treatment
under his group healthcare plan and Defendant Blue Cross' policy.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and all
putative class members who had also been denied coverage for the
same type of medical treatment under that policy.  He seeks
damages, individually and for the putative class, to recover
benefits due to them under the terms of their plans, and
injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief along with
attorney's fees.  Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of
himself and the putative class, an order declaring Blue Cross'
practices violate its ERISA duties, an order requiring Blue Cross
to reprocess all allegedly incorrect claim denials, and
disgorgement of all profits retained as a result of the wrongful
denials.

Defendant Group Health filed the instant motion to dismiss on March
16, 2020, and Defendant Blue Cross filed the instant motion to
dismiss on March 17, 2020, on the basis that the complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  They rely on a
document labeled "Notice of Final Internal Adverse Benefit
Determination" and a document labeled "Notice of External Review
Determination."  The Plaintiff responded in opposition on April 20,
2020, and the Defendants replied on July 28, 2020.

As to the ERISA Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim, Judge Flanagan finds
that the facts alleged in the complaint permit a reasonable
inference that Blue Cross abused its discretion.  Even upon
consideration of the various documents incorporated into the
Plaintiff's pleadings, the Plaintiff has adequately alleged facts
that allow a reasonable inference that Blue Cross abused its
discretion in denying his claim for coverage, giving him a
plausible claim for relief under Section 1132(a)(1)(B).

Judge Flanagan notes that factual development may, of course,
reveal that Blue Cross did engage in the requisite principled and
reasoned decision-making process supported by substantial evidence,
but at this stage of the proceedings, the Plaintiff's allegations
give rise to a plausible claim for relief.  Read in whole, the
pleadings state a plausible claim of wrongful claim denial under
ERISA's Section 1332(a)(1)(B) due to an abuse of discretion by the
plan administrator.

Judge Flanagan, however, finds that the Plaintiff's claim for
himself and the putative class under Section 1132(a)(3) must be
dismissed under Varity Corp. v. Howe and Korotynska v. Metro. Life
Ins. Co., (4th Cir. 2006), as their injuries are adequately
remedied by the relief available under Section 1132(a)(1)(B).  The
injunctive relief and equitable accounting and disgorgement sought
under Section 1132(a)(3) seek to remedy the same injury that the
Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim does: the wrongful denials of the
Plaintiff and the putative class members' claims for coverage.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims for the equitable relief of
accounting and disgorgement under Section 1132(a)(3), and the
injunctive relief must be dismissed as duplicative.

Accordingly, Judge Flanagan granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  She dismissed without prejudice
the Plaintiff's second claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3ytlsdp from Leagle.com.


GUEST-TEK: Misclassifies Installation Managers, Baptiste Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL JEAN BAPTISTE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00273-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., November 30, 2020) brings this complaint against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt
installation manager on or around February 3, 2020 through a
written offer letter sent by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week for the Defendant during the three years statute
limitations period between approximately February 2020 and
September 2020. However, the Defendant failed to pay him overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all the actual overtime hours he worked. The Defendant allegedly
misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
installation managers nationwide. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
maintain accurate time records of the actual start times, actual
stop times, and actual total hours worked each week by the
Plaintiff and the Class members.

Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment, Inc. provides broadband
Internet solutions to businesses serving mobile users. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Tel: (305) 901-1379
          Fax: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithtern.com


GUY'S SNACKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guy's Snacks
Corporation. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Guy's Snacks
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10238 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

Guys Snack Foods -- https://getguyschips.com/ -- is a snack foods
manufacturer and distributor based in Overland Park, Kansas, with a
target market being the Midwest. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H&E EQUIPMENT: Mizar Employment Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVE MIZAR and BRYAN ASHLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all other members of the general public similarly
situated v. H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00286339, 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
December 7, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02419-MCE-DB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

H&E Equipment Services is an integrated equipment company
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
                  
         Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 250-1800
         Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
         E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com

                   - and –

         Nolan W. Kessler, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
         Sacramento, CA 95833
         Telephone: (916) 564-5400
         Facsimile: (916) 564-5400
         E-mail: Nolan.Kessler@lewisbrisbois.com

HI-TECH ENERGY: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HI-TECH ENERGY GROUP, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-10922 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protect Act (TCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
beginning in or around March 2018 on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -8950 in an attempt to promote its
services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS) without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive multiple calls using ATDS or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone number,
which was registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or
about June 4, 2008.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers who received the Defendant's unsolicited calls
were harmed by the acts of the Defendant causing them to incur
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and invading their privacy.

Hi-Tech Energy Group, Inc. is a gas and oil investment group. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF 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
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Starwood Wins Summary Judgment in Simchon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA BLOOM SIMCHON, ISAAC SIMCHON, NICHOLAS PADULA,
ALIZA SEIBERT, and ANDREW SEIBERT, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, LP, COVE
HAVEN, INC., and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Defendants, Civil No. 3:15-CV-01434 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Jennifer P.
Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (i) granted Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment; (ii) denied as moot Highgate
Hotels, LP and Cove Haven, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and
Plaintiffs Erica Bloom Simchon and Isaac Simchon's motion for class
certification.

The Simchons, and Plaintiffs Padula, and the Seiberts, initiated
the action via a class action complaint on July 23, 2015, and filed
an amended class action complaint on Sept. 9, 2015.  The amended
complaint set forth five causes of action: violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(Count I); the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") (Count II); the New York General Business Law Deceptive
and Unfair Practices Act by the Simchons and the Seiberts (Count
III); common law fraud (Count IV); and unjust enrichment (Count V).


Beginning on at least Jan. 1, 2002 through October 2012, Cove Haven
owned, and Starwood operated Cove Haven Resort, Paradise Stream
Resort, and Pocono Palace Resort.  While the record provided by the
parties is murky as to the entities involved, Cove Haven and
Highgate assumed ownership of the Resorts in October 2012.
Starwood operated the Resorts as "all-inclusive" resorts, which
included the room rate, gratuity, taxes, meals, entertainment, and
other activities at the Resorts.

The Simchons, the only named Plaintiffs to stay at the Resorts
during Starwood's period of operation, stayed at Paradise Stream
Resort from Feb. 24, 2011 through Feb. 26, 2011.  At that time, an
18% gratuity was listed as a separate line item on all
reservations, confirmations, pre-bills, and statements, and was
disclosed to guests at the time a reservation was made and at
check-in.

The parties dispute the purpose of collecting the 18% gratuity.
Starwood avers that it was collected to be used, in part, to fund
staff wages and salaries throughout the year, and the intention of
the gratuity was to help fund payroll of all the Resort staff
throughout the year, even during seasonal downturns, and avoid
seasonal layoffs.  The Simchons submit that the gratuity was
collected for the overall revenue of the resorts.  Although called
a gratuity, the Simchons aver that the gratuity collected was
simply additional revenue for the Resorts, revenue just like hotel
revenue, food revenue, any revenue you want, it was revenue.  The
gratuity collected was not used to offset any cost of the staff at
the Resorts.

The Simchons were notified of the 18% gratuity prior to their
February 2011 stay, and also when they arrived at the Resorts.
Although the parties debate when the final price was paid, the
Simchons paid the amount represented to them when they made their
reservation and at check-in, including the 18% gratuity.  Isaac
Simchon testified that he and his wife "didn't mind the gratuity."


The case ultimately revolves around the 18% gratuity paid by the
Simchons.  The Simchons testified that they understood that the
gratuity was for tips for the waiters and waitresses at restaurants
and housekeeping.  Representing the gratuity as a tip, without that
money being paid directly to the employees, was a material
misrepresentation according to the Simchons.  However, the Simchons
testified that they normally tipped wait staff and housekeepers at
hotels.

Defendant Cove moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Count I, the Simchons' Count III, Count
IV, and Count V.  Further, it held that Highgate could not be held
liable for any claims prior to its acquisition of the properties at
issue in 2012.

On Feb. 10, 2017, Starwood filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  Once ripe, the Court denied Starwood's motion, but
directed the Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement pursuant
to Rule 12(e) to clarify the nature of the RICO claim as asserted
against each of the named Defendants, and the nature of the
enterprises that were alleged to have been operated.  The
Plaintiffs filed a statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(e) on Feb. 2, 2018.

On May 13, 2019, Starwood filed a motion for summary judgment,
brief in support thereof, and a statement of facts.  Highgate and
Cove Haven also filed a motion for summary judgment, supporting
brief, and statement of facts.  The same day, the Plaintiffs filed
two motions for class certification -- one for a class against
Starwood and Cove Haven by the Simchons, and one for a class
against Highgate and Cove Haven by Padula and the Seiberts.   The
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to amend the first amended
complaint.  All five motions were fully briefed by all parties.  On
Aug. 7, 2019, Starwood requested oral argument on its motion for
summary judgment and the Simchons' motion for class certification.

Thereafter, on Nov. 15, 2019, the case was transferred to Judge
Wilson.  On Feb. 6, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the first amended complaint, but permitted the
parties to file supplemental briefing on their summary judgment
motions.  The Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on Feb. 7,
2020, which the Defendants answered.  The parties subsequently
filed supplemental briefing for the pending summary judgment
motions.

On June 9, 2020, Highgate and Cove Haven filed a stipulation of
partial dismissal with prejudice.  As indicated in the stipulation,
Padula and the Seiberts settled their claims with Highgate and Cove
Haven.  However, the stipulation expressly provided that the
Simchons' RICO claims remained against Starwood and Cove Haven
during the limited period when Defendant Starwood owned and/or
operated the subject premises in question prior to Oct. 1, 2012.
Based on that stipulation, the Court denied Padula and the
Seiberts' motion for class certification against Highgate and Cove
Haven.

Starwood raises three arguments in its motion for summary
judgement: (1) the Simchons lack standing to pursue a RICO claim;
(2) the Simchons' RICO claim is time-barred; and (3) the Simchons
cannot establish the element of a RICO claim.  

Because she finds that the Simchons do not have standing to pursue
their RICO claim, Judge Wilson does not address Starwood's
remaining two arguments.  

Judge Wilson rejects the Simchons' claim that they suffered a
concrete financial injury.  Furthermore, Judge Wilson finds that,
even if the Simchons suffered an injury, they have failed to
establish that Starwood's alleged deception was the proximate cause
of their injury.  Thus, the Judge granted Starwood's motion for
summary judgment in this regard.  Furthermore, although not raised
by the parties, because she finds that the Simchons lacks standing
to bring their RICO claim against Starwood, they also lack standing
against Cove Haven, which stands in the same position as Starwood
in the action.  Therefore, Cove Haven is dismissed from the
action.

The Judge now turns to Highgate and Cove Haven's motion for summary
judgment, and the Simchons' motion for class certification against
Starwood and Cove Haven.  Having reviewed the motion for summary
judgment, Judge Wilson denied the motion for summary judgment as
moot.  The motion only discusses action taken by Highgate and Cove
Haven after Highgate purchased the resorts in October 2012.
Accordingly, because all claims against Highgate and Cove Haven
have been dismissed with prejudice for that time period, it is
appropriate to deny the motion as moot.

Because the Simchons lack standing for their RICO claim against
Starwood and Cove Haven, they cannot pursue class certification for
their RICO claim.  Thus, the motion for class certification is
denied as moot.

Copies of the Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Memorandum and Order are
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2f753bt and
https://tinyurl.com/y5hw6dd2 from Leagle.com.


HOME DEPOT: Class Certification Continued to Sept. 2021
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELLY SANDOVAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00457-GW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge George H. Wu entered an order:

   1. continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion
      for class certification from January 14, 2021 to July
      29,2021;

   2. continuing the deadline for the Defendant to oppose the
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification from February
      18, 2021 to August 26, 2021;

   3. continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to file her reply in
      support of the motion for class certification from March
      8, 2021 to September 10, 2021.

   4. continuing the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification from 8:30 a.m. on March 22, 2021 to
      September 23, 2021, 8:30 a.m.

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

A copy of the Court's order approving stipulation to continue class
certification dates dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m9t06o at no extra charge.[CC]

HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Settlement Class Certified in Flowers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY FLOWERS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY (HRHA), Case No.
3:19-cv-00241-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge M. Hannah Lauck
entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for preliminary certification, and
      provisionally approving, for settlement purposes only,
      this Settlement Class:

      "all current and former tenants of one or more of the five
      public housing developments owned and operated by the
      Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority: Davisville;
      Edward Bland Court; Thomas Rolfe Court; Thomas Rolfe Court
      Extension; and, Piper Square, and who made payments, or
      otherwise were subject to HRHA's rates and procedures
      regarding utility allowances between June 1, 2014, and
      September 30, 2018;"

   2. granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of the
      Settlement Agreement.

   3. preliminarily appointing the Plaintiffs Dorothy Flowers,
      Natalie Brown, Natasha Brown, Curley Dickens, and Velda
      Crockett as Class Representatives for the Settlement
      Class; and

   4. conditionally appointing these law firms and attorneys
      as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class:

           Brenda Castafieda, Esq.
           Mary DeVries, Esq.
           Sylvia Cosby Jones, Esq.
           Caroline Klosko, Esq.
           Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
           LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
           626 East Broad Street, Suite 200
           Richmond, VA 23219
           Telephone: (804) 643-1086
           Facsimile: (804) 643-2059
           E-mail: brenda@justice4all.org
                   maryd@justice4all.org
                   sylvia@justice4all.org
                   carrie@justice4all.org
                   rmcfarland@justice4all.org

                - and -

          Larry F. Eisenstat, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2600
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: Leisenstat@crowell.com

The Class Settlement provides that:

   1. The Class shall receive a gross recovery of $220,000.00 to
      be distributed to current and former tenants as follows:

      a. $135,000.00 in cash payable to the Class Members
         immediately ("cash portion").

      b. $85,000.00 in tenant account credits to be applied to
         the accounts of Class Members who are current tenants
         immediately for use against future rent charges until
         such credits are exhausted ("account credits").

  2. Each Class Member's allocated share of the cash payment set
     forth in the preceding paragraph shall be apportioned as
     follows:

     a. $5,000.00 shall be paid as five incentive awards of
        $1,000.00 to each of the class representative for
        pursuing the claims; for their expenses incurred
        attending meetings and hearings, and for the personal
        time spent advancing the litigation.

     b. Approximately $54,303.00 shall be distributed to Class
        Members who are current and former tenants on the
        following basis: three dollars ($3.00) times the number
        of full months during which each was a tenant at an HRHA
        unit during the Recovery Period.

     c. Approximately $34,572.00 shall be distributed, on a pro
        rata basis, to Class Members who are former tenants
        based on the total amount of excess utility charges
        assessed to each former tenant's account for gas and
        electricity consumption during the Recovery Period.

     d. Approximately $41,125.00 shall be distributed, on a pro
        rata basis, to Class Members who are current tenants
        based on the total amount of excess utility charges
        assessed to each current tenant's account for utility
        consumption during the Recovery Period.

   3. HRHA shall credit approximately $85,000.00 to the HRHA
      tenant accounts of Class Members who are current tenants
      based on the total amount of excess utility charges
      assessed to each current tenant's account for utility
      consumption during the Recovery Period on a pro rata
      basis. A Class Member's pro rata share must be first
      applied to outstanding non-utility unpaid balances on that
      Class Member's HRHA accounts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWBo9y at no extra charge.[CC]


I.C. SYSTEM: Clark Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-17478 (D.N.J., November 30, 2020)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants to
challenge its alleged abusive debt collection practices that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Antioch Apts Lp., who
contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt.
Subsequently, the Defendant sent an initial contact notice to the
Plaintiff on or about September 24, 2020. However, the letter
misled and deceived the Plaintiff by stating an additional
collection charge that is not permitted by the agreement creating
the debt nor by law.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

I.C. System, Inc. 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


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Timm Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal
in the purported class action suit entitled, Timm, v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc, et al., is ongoing.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two
quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the
unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative
dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two
directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks
punitive damages and legal expenses.

On July 16, 2018, the Circuit Court entered a Judgement Order
whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all
defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all
claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the
validity of the 2009 amendments to the Preferred C Articles
Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting
provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to
mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was
required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles
Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the
amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special
election within sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to
elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on
the Company's Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated
dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for
payment); and, (4) declared that the Company is required to pay
three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million,
but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time).

The Circuit Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome
of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.


On October 2, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals held oral argument
for all appeals in the matter. On February 5, 2020, the Court of
Special Appeals requested that the parties provide a supplemental
memorandum explaining the appealability of the original Circuit
Court opinion which the Company responded to on February 21, 2020.


On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B
voting rights arguing that the voting rights provision was not
ambiguous.  

In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
to the Maryland Court of Appeals appealing the Court of Special
Appeals opinion. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of
certiorari on July 13, 2020, agreeing to hear the Company's appeal.


The Company submitted its opening brief on August 21, 2020 and the
plaintiffs submitted their respective opposing briefs on October 13
and 14, 2020.  

The Company's reply brief currently is due on November 13, 2020 and
oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2020.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: McNair-Batres Consolidated Suit Trial Set for 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial date
in the consolidated McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage and Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage,
is scheduled on July 12, 2021.  

On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint was filed, which added
a claim alleging  California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) violations.  

On March 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the court
stating (1) the plaintiff's individual claims should be arbitrated
pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, (2) the class
claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3)
the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims.


This case was consolidated with Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba
CashCall Mortgage with a rescheduled trial date of July 12, 2021.


On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.   

The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.   

The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief.  

On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging only PAGA violations and seeking penalties, attorneys'
fees, and such other appropriate relief.  

This case was consolidated with the McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp.
dba CashCall Mortgage with a rescheduled trial date of July 12,
2021.  

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Petition for Review in Marentes Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of California in the
purported class action suit entitled, Marentes v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., is underway.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed in California
entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that
certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an
unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that
the fees charged are improper.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2,
2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
without prejudice.

On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs
were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendant.  

On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and
the plaintiffs filed their opening brief on October 31, 2019.  The
Company filed its response on February 19, 2020.

On September 11, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of
California affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the
Company.

On October 21, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review
with the Supreme Court of California.  

The Company's answer to the petition is due November 10, 2020.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

INMATE SERVICES: Bid to Certify Class in Stearns Partly Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DANZEL L. STEARNS, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION, ET
AL., Case Nos. 3:16-CV-00339-BRW-JJV, 3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR,
3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD (E.D. Ark.), District Judge Billy Roy Wilson
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as to
3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV and dismissed as premature as to
3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR and 3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD.

Judge Wilson has reviewed the proposed Partial Recommended
Disposition submitted by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe, the
Plaintiff's Objections, and the Defendants' response to the
objections.  He notes that the Plaintiff's objections are
inaccurate and are unnecessarily strident.

For example, for their Eighth Amendment Claims, the Plaintiff
points out that the Partial Recommended Disposition ("PRD") found
that he lacked standing to bring claims under the Eighth Amendment
because he was a pretrial detainee.  Rather than take issue with
the finding, the Plaintiff asserts that the Second Amended
Complaint and Motion for Class Certification were misunderstood,
because he is seeking class certification only under the 14th
Amendment.  

Yet, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint reads that
Defendants Inmate and Randy L. Cagle, Jr.'s actions and inactions
violated the rights of the Plaintiff, and each of those similarly
situated, protected by the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments (as
incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S.
Constitution.  In his objections, however, the Plaintiff disclaims
Eighth Amendment class claims for purposes of Case No.
3:16-cv-00339-BRW.  Accordingly, the issue appears to be moot.

As to typicality, the Plaintiff did not object to the PRD's finding
that there was no typicality within the class.  That concession
alone is enough to warrant denial of the Motion for Class
Certification, Judge Wilson says.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the magistrate judge failed to
analyze the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
However, the PRD correctly noted that, although the Plaintiff
requested certification under FRCP 23(b)(2), the Second Amended
Complaint does not request injunctive or declaratory relief.
Accordingly, FRCP 23(b)(2) does not apply and the request was
properly rejected.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the PRD erroneously found that the
predominance requirement had not been satisfied.  Again, the Judge
disagrees.  As the PRD correctly (and thoroughly) points out the
potential claims vary too much to allow for class certification.
Essentially every transport would be its own small class (assuming
the alleged actions occurred on every transport and to every person
on that particular transport).  The Plaintiff's attempt to break
the class down into subclasses based on the length of travel does
not cure the problem.

Accordingly, after carefully considering the objections and making
a de novo review of the record, Judge Wilson approves and adopts
the Partial Recommended Disposition in all respects, and rules that
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as to
3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV and dismissed as premature as to
3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR and 3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 7, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2fjh8ah from Leagle.com.


INVENTURE FOODS: Nason Balks at Mislabeled Mozzarella Sticks Snacks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Nason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-10141
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020) arises from the Defendant's deceptive
labeling of its Baked Mozzarella Stick Snacks under the TGI Fridays
brand.

According to the complaint, the Defendant mislead consumers
including the Plaintiff because the product does not contain
mozzarella cheese, where in fact it contains cheddar cheese that is
indicated on the ingredient list. Though the product's front label
states "Natural and Artificially Flavored," no reasonable consumer
will expect this statement means they should not expect any
mozzarella cheese. By using "mozzarella" as part of the product's
name, consumers will get the false impression the product contains
actual mozzarella as an ingredient in an appreciable, non de
minimis amount.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is an
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.29 per 2.25
oz. compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the product if it
were represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says.

Inventure Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets a variety of owned
or licensed branded snack foods. The Company also offers private
label potato chips. Inventure Foods serves customers in the state
of Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JAMES S. FARRIN: Narrows Claims in Garey DPPA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Loretta C. Biggs granted in part and denied in part
the Fox Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint in the case WILLIAM PARKER GAREY, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES S.
FARRIN, P.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV542 (M.D. N.C.).

The Fox Defendants refer to collectively to James S. Farrin, P.C.
d/b/a Law Offices of James Scott Farrin; James S. Farrin; Marcari,
Russotto, Spencer & Balaban, P.C.; Donald W. Marcari; Riddle &
Brantley, L.L.P.; Sean A. Cole; Wallace Pierce Law, PLLC; Jared
Pierce; Van Laningham & Associates, PLLC d/b/a Bradley Law Group;
R. Bradley Van Laningham; Lanier Law Group, P.A.; Lisa Lanier;
Crumley Roberts, LLP; Chris Roberts; Hardison & Cochran, PLLC;
Benjamin T. Cochran; Hardee & Hardee LLP; Charles Hardee; G. Wayne
Hardee; and Katherine E. Andrews-Lanier.

The putative class action was filed against various lawyers and law
firms for alleged violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
of 1994 ("DPPA").  The Initial Complaint was filed in May 2016, and
amended in August 2016.  The Second Amended Complaint was filed in
October 2019.

Fox Defendants contended that the differences between the First and
Second Complaints are material and moved to dismiss this complaint
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, arguing that (1) merely obtaining public
information is not sufficient to establish an Article III
injury-in-fact; (2) Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover
liquidated damages because they have not suffered "actual damages";
and (3) injunctive relief is unavailable in the case.

Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue under the
DPPA to withstand both a facial and factual challenge and may be
entitled to liquidated damages. However, the Court also concluded
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege sufficient
facts to support standing for injunctive relief.

Accordingly, Fox Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint for lack of standing under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) is granted as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief and denied as to whether Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged Article III standing and the availability of
liquidated damages, the Court ruled.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 28, 2020 is available at
https://bit.ly/3a2CuOs from Leagle.com.

Previously in the case, in a Sept. 1, 2020 Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2bmk845 from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge L.
Patrick Auld of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina (a) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Financial Discovery from Fox Defendants; and (b) granted in part
and denied in part (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to File Documents
Partially Under Seal, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to File
Documents Partially Under Seal.

Magistrate Judge Auld held that the Court's previous Certification
Opinion moots the primary justification for the Plaintiffs' Motion
and proportionality concerns prevent compelled compliance with the
Financial Discovery solely for impeachment purposes.  Additionally,
the Fox Defendants have justified sealing their undisclosed
financial information, but not any other information in the Reply
or exhibits.  

Judge Auld granted in part and denied in part the First Sealing
Motion as follows: the First Sealing Motion is granted except
insofar as it seeks to redact the information contained in the
deposit accounts schedule (Schedule 1) on page 339 of the Discovery
Responses.  The Judge also granted in part and denied in part the
Second Sealing Motion as follows: the Second Sealing Motion is
granted except insofar as it seeks redaction of (i) any information
other than the specific monetary amounts identified on pages 2, 3,
and 7 of the Reply, (ii) references in Hardee's deposition to the
insolvent nature of Hardee's firm on its 2018 balance sheet, and
(iii) the publicly available exhibits to Marcari's deposition.  


KAHOOTS INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kahoots, Inc. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Kahoots, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10303
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

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

Kahoot! -- https://kahoot.com/ -- is a game-based learning platform
that brings engagement and fun to 1+ billion players every year at
school, at work, and at home. [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


KCI USA: Objection to Denial of Amended Palmer Filing Overruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHERINE PALMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KCI USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-CV-3084 (D. Neb.), Judge John M. Gerrard of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska overruled the
Plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's order denying her
motion for leave to file an amended class action complaint.

The Judge reconsiders the magistrate judge's ruling only where it
has been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.  He finds that the magistrate judge's order was neither.
Specifically, Judge Gerrard opines, the magistrate judge did not
err in concluding that the Plaintiff was on notice of the potential
basis for the claim she seeks to add as early as Feb. 10, 2020.
Nor did the magistrate judge err in finding that adding the
Plaintiff's extremely broad new claim for relief would, at this
date, prejudice the Defendant.

The Plaintiff's first claim--the so-called "wrong number" claim--is
premised on the allegation that she was mistakenly called by the
Defendant due to a transposed telephone number.  The first problem
with that claim is that it's not clear how the Plaintiff has
standing to assert it.  The other problem is because the
Plaintiff's injury isn't the same as the other members of the
proposed class, she's not a proper class representative.

For these reasons, Judge Gerrard overruled the Plaintiff's
objection.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yy2zg4wf from Leagle.com.


KELCO FEDERAL: Winner Sues Over Noncompliance of Mortgage Note
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WINNER and LYNNE WINNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KELCO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
1:20-cv-03420-ELH (D. Md., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly service the Plaintiffs' loan and
noncompliance with the terms of the mortgage note or Deed of Trust,
resulting to foreclosure on the Plaintiffs' property.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached its agreements
and contracts with the Winners, including, among other things, by
charging the Winners late fees not authorized under the Note or
Deed of Trust, applying the Winners' mortgage loan payments to
other accounts and in an order not agreed to under the Deed of
Trust. The Defendant falsely represented to the Winners that the
Winners could make bi-weekly mortgage loan payments and that Kelco
could properly account for and apply those payments. Because it
could not properly process the Winners' bi-weekly payments, Kelco
misapplied the Winners' loan payments. The Defendant further failed
to properly document and verify records related to the Winners'
account or alleged debt.

As a result of Kelco's failures to correct their erroneous and
derogatory credit reporting, the Plaintiffs have suffered a
detriment to their ability to borrow, emotional distress, and other
damages in an amount to be determined at trial constituting actual
and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs Robert and Lynne Winner are a married couple who reside
in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Winners financed the purchase of
real estate in Mineral County, West Virginia, by signing a Note
with Kelco secured by a Deed of Trust.

Kelco Federal Credit Union is a financial institution organized and
operating under federal law and having its principal place of
business in Cumberland, Allegany County, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
          SKINNER LAW FIRM
          PO Box 487
          Charles Town, WV 25414
          Telephone: (304) 725-7029
          E-mail: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH STONEHOCKER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KINDRED
HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC and DOES 1-25, Case No. 4:19-cv-02494-YGR
(N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 14, 2019), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:

   1. finding that the terms of the Class Settlement
      preliminarily appears to be fair, reasonable, and
      adequate, and within the range of possible approval and
      sufficient to warrant providing notice to the Class:

   2. conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only,
      the Class consisting of:

      "All persons who are or were employed by one or more
      Defendants as non-exempt Skilled Clinicians to work at a
      skilled nursing facility in California at any time from
      February 14, 2015 through September 1, 2020."

      The term "Skilled Clinicians means all individuals" who
      have held one or more positions

   3. appointing the Plaintiff Sarah Stonehocker as
      representative of the Class;

   4. designating as Class Counsel Matthew D. Carlson of the
      Law Office of Matthew D. Carlson; and

   5. appointing Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement
      Administrator.

The Settlement Agreement provides that:

   --  The Defendants will pay the Gross Settlement Fund of
       $1,995,000 on a non-reversionary basis (unless the number
       of Class Members opting out exceeds 20, in which case the
       Defendants have the sole and absolute discretion to
       rescind/void the Settlement Agreement within 20 days
       after receiving from the Settlement Administrator the
       final list of opt-outs).

   --  Class Members are not required to submit claims to
       receive settlement benefits. The Defendants shall pay the
       employer's share of payroll taxes on the portion of
       settlement benefits allocated to wages separately from
       the Gross Settlement Fund.

A copy of the Court's modified order granting preliminary approval
of class action settlement dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oz8k9v at no extra charge.[CC]

KING COUNTY, WA: Appeals Court Affirms Doe AA & CC's Pseudonym Use
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN DOE AA, and JOHN DOE CC, as
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KING
COUNTY, a municipal organization, and its departments KING COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants v. DONNA ZINK and JEFFREY
ZINK, a married couple, Requestors, Case No. 80321-2-I (Wash.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington affirms the trial court's
orders (i) authorizing the Plaintiffs to use pseudonyms to proceed,
and (ii) later dismissing their lawsuit at their request with
prejudice without requiring them to disclose their true
identities.

Zink, using the Public Records Act, requested King County Special
Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative ("SSOSA") evaluations for John
Doe AA and John Doe CC ("John Does").  When Zink made that request,
the King County Superior Court had entered injunctions prohibiting
the release of SSOSA evaluations for Level I, II, and III sex
offenders. Because the John Does were not required to register as
sex offenders, these injunctions did not protect their records.

The John Does filed the class action lawsuit asking the trial court
to enjoin the release of their SSOSA evaluations. They also asked
to proceed in pseudonym.  Their request to proceed in pseudonym
stated that the Plaintiffs will disclose their identity to the
Court and to the Defendant, subject to a protective order and as
necessary for the Defendant to defend the matter.  Zink opposed the
requests for a preliminary injunction and for authorization to
proceed in pseudonym.

On March 10, 2016, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction
enjoining the release of the SSOSA evaluations and granted the
Does' request to proceed using pseudonyms.  It did not order the
John Does to disclose their identities to Zink.

On March 17, 2016, the trial court stayed the proceedings in the
case and certified it for appellate review under Rule 2.4 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure its decisions about the use of
pseudonyms, a preliminary injunction, and class certification.

In March 2019 the trial court lifted its stay and directed the
parties to explain why no action had occurred in the case.  In
response, the John Does asked the court to dismiss their lawsuit
pursuant to Court Rule 41.  They did not ask the court to alter or
seal any document in the court file.  Ms. Zink opposed the request
but did not file any motion asking the court to require the
disclosure of the John Does' true names.

On March 20, 2019, the court granted the John Does' request, struck
the preliminary injunction, authorized King County to provide Zink
the requested records, and dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice.
It did not dismiss Ma. Zink's cross-claim against King County.  The
trial court also denied her request for reconsideration. The court
later dismissed her cross-claim without prejudice by agreement of
the parties. Zink appeals.  

First, she challenges the trial court's original decision to allow
the John Does to use pseudonyms in the litigation making the
assignment of error.  She says the trial court erred and abused its
discretion in entering the order of March 10, 2016 allowing the
Respondents to file the suit under a false name and directing the
King County Superior Court Clerk to delete the Respondents' full
names from all electronic court databases, and replace them with a
John Doe designations without application of GR 15 or holding an
Ishikawa hearing.

The Appellate Court states that the record affirmatively shows the
trial court considered the Ishikawa factors before authorizing the
John Does to proceed using pseudonyms.  The order granting this
relief did not direct the King County Superior Court Clerk to take
any action let alone direct her to delete any names from any
database. And, Zink has not identified any other order directing
the clerk to take the action.

Next, Zink challenges the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit
without requiring the John Does to disclose their names.  She
alleges that the trial court erred in entering the order of April
19, 2019 when it refused to require the Respondents to identify
themselves in the caption of the summons, complaint or the court
and SCOMIS indexes without application of GR 15 or holding an
Ishikawa hearing.

The Appellate Court says that Zink overlooks the fact that the
trial court conducted an Ishikawa factors analysis when it
authorized the John Does to use pseudonyms. She cites no authority
for the proposition that the trial court must repeat the analysis
each time it enters an order granting relief independent of the
anonymity issue. No persuasive reason for repetition occurs to the
Court. So, Zink's claim fails.

Finally, Zink asserts that she has a constitutional right to know
the party summoning her into costly litigation and that the trial
court's order allowing secrecy without application of GR 15 and an
Ishikawa hearing violates her due process right.

The Appellate Court notes that in the years before the John Does
filed their motion to dismiss, Zink never filed a motion asking the
court to require the disclosure of their names. Because she fails
to cite to controlling or persuasive authority that supports her
claim that failing to conduct a GR 15 or Ishikawa hearing violates
her due process, the Appellate Court rejects it.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms. It concludes that the
trial court correctly applied the Ishikawa factors before
authorizing the John Does to proceed anonymously. And, anonymous
parties who have their case dismissed at their request before a
decision on the merits usually should not be forced to reveal their
true names as that would obviate the relief they sought. Zink has
not shown she was denied due process. The Appellate Court declines
to consider her other claims because she did not cite any authority
supporting them.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 7, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mdwml8 from Leagle.com.

Howard Phillip Schneiderman, of King County Prosecuting Attorney's
Office, at 516 3rd Ave., in Seattle, Washington; and La Rond Baker
of King County Department of Public Defense, at 710 2nd Ave., in
Seattle, Washington, represent the Respondent(s).


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Labor Class Suit Goes to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HANY TANIOUS, LOUSSINE S. MAZMANIAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAMES B. GATTON;
PATRICK J. O'MALLEY; LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC.; LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. RG20076517, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08595 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Workers Compensation Act,
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
willful misclassification, waiting time penalties, statutory
penalties, retaliatory termination, constructive fraud and
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence,
negligence per se, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and unlawful business practices.

Landstar System Inc. is a transportation services company
specializing in logistics, with its principal place of business in
Jacksonville, Florida.

Landstar Ranger, Inc. is a company that provides trucking
transportation services, with its principal place of business in
Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
         2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 795-4700
         Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
         E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

                 - and –

         Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
         3214 West McGraw Street, Suite 301F
         Seattle, WA 98199
         Telephone: (206) 288-6192
         Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
         E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com

                 - and –

         James A. Eckhart, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
         10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 637-1777
         Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
         E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com

LARQ INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Larq, Inc. The case
is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Larq, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05933-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

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

LARQ -- https://www.livelarq.com/ -- helps people access pristine
drinking water easily and sustainably through innovative technology
combined with inspirational design. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LASKO PRODUCTS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lasko Products, LLC.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Lasko Products, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05941
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

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

Lasko Products -- https://www.lasko.com/ -- is a top portable fan
maker that operates several manufacturing plants in the US and
distributes its wares internationally. The company's products
include indoor and outdoor electric fans, humidifiers, bladeless
heaters, air purifiers, and accessories. [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: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


LENDER411 LLC: Degrate Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lender411, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Frenchell Degrate, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lender411, LLC and
ActiveProspect Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-02227-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
Nov., 24, 2020).

The case arises from personal injury-related issues and is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney.

Lender411, LLC is a mortgage broker based in Santa Ana,
California.

ActiveProspect Inc. is a marketing software as a service company
for online lead acquisition, enabling real-time data
decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER PA
          1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: breed@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com  

               - and -

          David William Hall, Esq.
          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
                  fhedin@hedinhall.com

LENDINGTREE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Fischler Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGTREE, LLC, d/b/a LT
TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05864 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3,
2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.lendingtree.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.

LendingTree, LLC provides online tools to aid consumers in their
financial decisions. The Company offers services including auto
insurance, credit cards, mortgage, refinance, home equity, credit
scores, mortgage rates, and various calculations tools. LendingTree
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Jones FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yolanda Jones, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, KROLL
FACTUAL DATA, INC., FACTUAL DATA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01180, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on Dec. 7, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06263-MHW-KAJ to
the proceeding.

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

LexisNexis Risk Solutions -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/global/en/
-- is a global data and analytics company that provides data and
technology services, analytics, predictive insights and fraud
prevention for a wide range of industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eleanor M. Drake, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          John Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3053
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: emdrake@bm.net
                 sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                 jalbanese@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Connelly, Esq.
          Ralph C. Surman , Jr., Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          501 Grant Street, Suite 300
          Union Trust Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 454-5025
          Email: michael.connelly@troutman.com
                 ralph.surman@troutman.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Spak, Esq.
          FISHEYBROYLES, LLP
          The Detective Building
          224 N. Euclid Avenue, Suite 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206
          Phone: (412) 401-2000
          Email: jason.spak@fisherbroyles.com


LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Chapman Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LA'RIA CHAPMAN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12875-AJT-APP (E.D.
Mich., Filed Oct. 28, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class defined as:

      "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by
      LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, anywhere in the united states,
      at any time from october 27, 2017 through the final
      disposition of this matter (putative class members);"

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-
      mail, and text-message) to putative class members;

   3. approving a Reminder Email and Text Message to be sent to
      the Putative Class Members halfway through the 60-day
      notice period; and

   4. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all Putative Class Members by providing a
      list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      addresses, and e-mail addresses of all Putative Class
      Members who worked for Defendant during the Relevant Time
      Period.

This is a nationwide collective and class action lawsuit for unpaid
overtime wages brought under the FLSA and state wage law.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are all hourly
call-center employees who worked for Defendant Logisticare
throughout the United States in the past three years. The
Plaintiffs challenge Logisticare's unlawful company-wide policy
that forces its hourly call-center employees -- the Plaintiffs and
the Putative Class Members -- to perform unpaid off-the- lock work.


LogistiCare provides non emergency medical transportation
management services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification dated Dec. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/2Lvr0Je at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys in Charge for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members,
are:

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

               - and -

          Jennifer McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MH 48067
          Telephone: (248) 658-8951
          Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

LOREX CORP: Soo Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD SOO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOREX CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01437-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Plaintiffs Gerald Soo and Matthew Lauinger sought to dismiss all
claims against Defendants Lorex Corporation and Dahua Technology
USA Inc. without prejudice. Defendants have consented to the
request. Each party shall bear its own costs. The parties' November
2020 stipulation of dismissal is available at
https://bit.ly/2W64skn from PacerMonitor.com.

The putative class action was filed against Lorex and Dahua
Technology USA Inc. alleging violations of various state common law
claims, violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), the New York's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), and the
New York's false advertising law ("FAL").

Lorex, a subsidiary of Dahua, manufactured a variety of indoor and
outdoor home security Flir cameras with the ability to upload
security footage into cloud storage.  The cameras also offered a
"Rapid Recap" feature, with which users could see a condensed,
time-stamped video of activity observed by the camera.  The
cameras' cloud storage and Rapid Recap features were made possible
by applications managed by Lorex.  After selling its Flir cameras
since 2015, on Aug. 15, 2019, Lorex announced it was changing
technology providers for the cameras' Apps.  As a result, the Flir
cameras could no longer connect to Apps, rendering them
nonfunctional.  Lorex then offered consumers a "Lorex Active
Deterrence Wi-Fi replacement camera" or a Lorex.com store discount
of US $120.  The Plaintiffs allege these are inadequate substitutes
for their inoperative Flir cameras.

Soo, a California resident, subsequently filed the putative class
action on behalf of purchasers of Flir cameras whose functionality
was reduced by Lorex's August 2019 change in technology providers,
alleging an unjust enrichment claim as well as a claim for
violations of California's UCL.  He then filed the First Amended
Complaint (FAC) which added Lauinger, a New York resident, a claim
for trespass to chattel, and claims under New York's FAL and CPA.


Before the entry of Stipulation of Dismissal, Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley (i) denied the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay discovery; and (ii) granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint ("FAC") in a Sept. 8, Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6h25g3n from Leagle.com.  

The Magistrate Judge found that neither Mr. Lauinger nor Mr. Soo
assented to the arbitration provision.  In the September 2020
Order, the Plaintiffs' New York unjust enrichment claim is
dismissed without leave to amend.  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the fraud-based claims with leave to amend is granted.  The
common law claims brought under the laws of states other than
California and New York are dismissed for lack of standing.  The
motion to dismiss is otherwise denied.


LVNV FUNDING: Saks Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Allen Saks, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent
Capital Services, L.P., Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 0:20-cv-62488-UU (S.D. Fla., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

LVNV Funding LLC -- https://www.lvnvfunding.com/ -- is a company
that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card
issuers and personal loan lenders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


LYFT INC: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LYFT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint ("CCAC").

The case is a consolidated securities class action brought by
Plaintiff Rick Keiner against Defendant Lyft, Logan Green,
Co-Founder, CEO, and Director on Lyft's board of directors, John
Zimmer, Co-Founder, President and Vice Chairman of the Board, Brian
Roberts, CFO, Prashant (Sean) Aggarwal, Chairman of the Board,
Board Members Ben Horowitz, Valerie Jarrett, David Lawee, Hiroshi
Mikitani, Ann Miura-Ko, Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, and Former
Board Member Jonathan Christodoro.  In his complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933: making untrue statements and misleading
statements under Section 11, and control person liability under
Section 15.

Lyft is a rideshare company that sought to revolutionize
transportation by launching its peer-to-peer marketplace for
on-demand ridesharing.  It registered its issuance of common stock
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to Lyft's
registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-229996) declared
effective on March 28, 2019.  It offered 32.5 million shares to the
public through an initial public offering at a price of $72 per
share, generating total proceeds of $2.34 billion.

According to the Plaintiff, Lyft made representations in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO that were materially misleading, omitted information necessary
in order to make the statements not misleading, and omitted
material facts required to be stated therein.  Specifically, the
Registration Statement misled investors with respect to: (1) the
potential for severe reputational damage and legal liability due to
rampant sexual assaults committed by Lyft drivers; (2) the
Company's actual national market share; (3) the key metrics
promoted by the Company to investors as important measurements of
the Company's financial performance and growth were about to be
abandoned; (4) the Company was days away from closing its first
quarter with a massive loss; (5) safety issues regarding the
Company's bike sharing business jeopardized the Company's growth
plans; and (6) labor conflicts with the Company's drivers, all of
which were known to, but concealed by Defendants at the time of the
IPO.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  They also request that the
Court takes judicial notice of or consider incorporated by
reference the following 15 documents: (i) U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission filings (Exs. 1, 2, 3); (ii) news articles (Exs. 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14); and (iii) the Plaintiff's amended
certification (Ex. 15).  The Plaintiff filed no objection to the
Defendants' request for judicial notice.

Because the Plaintiff refers extensively to the document and the
document forms the basis of the Plaintiff's claim, Judge Gilliam
granted the motion as to Exhibit 1, finding the document
incorporated by reference.  The Judge also granted the Defendants'
motion for judicial notice of Exhibit 15, the Plaintiff's Amended
Certification.  The Amended Certification is appropriately
considered part of the complaint, such that the incorporation by
reference doctrine applies.

Although Exhibits 6 and 11, news articles specifically referenced
in the complaint, and Exhibits 2 and 3, the Company's 10-Q filed
May 14, 2019 and Uber's Form S-1 Registration Statement, do not
contain allegedly misleading statements themselves, they form the
basis of the Plaintiff's allegations as to why representations in
the Registration Statement are misleading.  Accordingly, the Judge
granted the Defendants' request for judicial notice as to Exhibits
2, 3, 6, and 11.  Finally, the Defendants' Exhibits 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,
10, 12, 13, and 14 are not specifically referenced in the CCAC or
relevant to the Court's analysis.  Therefore, the Defendants'
request as to those exhibits is denied as moot.

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
fails to adequately plead that any materially false or misleading
statement or omission was made in the Registration Statement.  They
also argue that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged Section 11
damages for the safety, first quarter, and driver benefits
statements given that the decline in stock price occurred after the
first-filed complaint was brought.

Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the CCAC.  The Judge denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 11 claim regarding the
rider safety risk factor statements and bikeshare program risk
factor statements.  The Judge granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 11 claim regarding the rider safety
statements, market share statements, Bookings metrics and first
quarter loss statements, bikeshare program statements, and driver
benefits statements for failure to plead falsity, with leave to
amend.

Among other things, the Plaintiff identifies news stories as early
as April 7, 2019 that began to publicly disclose sexual assault
allegations and litigation.  On April 7, 2019, Anna Gilchrist
shared her story of sexual harassment by a Lyft driver and the
Company's response on Twitter.  On April 9, 2019, the San Francisco
Chronicle published a story on Gilchrist's experience and other
safety issues at Lyft.  Lyft's stock price fell more than 20%
between April 8 and April 10, 2019.  Accordingly, it is not clear
on the face of the pleading that the Plaintiff cannot show damages,
even assuming that April 15, 2019 was the date of the first-filed
complaint.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 11 claim regarding the rider safety
risk factor statements.

The Judge also finds that the allegations regarding the bikeshare
program risk factor statements sufficiently state a claim under
Section 11.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration
Statement's hypothetical risks were in fact "present realities,"
and that Lyft's fleet of bikes were already experiencing dangerous
defects and were being improperly repaired.  Similarly, the Judge
cannot resolve the parties' materiality and adequacy disagreements
at the pleading stage.

The other bikeshare program statements, however, constitute
non-actionable puffery.  These statements focus on Lyft's singular
focus on revolutionizing transportation and its commitment to high
safety standards for the operation of bikes and scooters on its
platform to best serve its riders and broader communities.  The
Plaintiff argues that Lyft affirmatively created a positive
mpression regarding a thriving bikeshare business that would drive
growth, when in fact Lyft knew that it was 'doing poorly' in this
area.

However, the statements identified by the Plaintiff do not make any
representations as to the status of the bikeshare program.
Instead, the statements talk generally of Lyft's growth and
business plan, which included both the bikeshare program and a
scooter program.  The Plaintiff's allegations that the bikes had
known defects and repair issues do not contradict the statements
about Lyft's commitment to the bikeshare program and its role in
Lyft's overall business plan.  Instead, as with the rider safety
statements, the bikeshare program statements beyond the risk factor
disclosures constitute non-actionable puffery.  Accordingly, the
Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 11 claim regarding the bikeshare
program and related risk factor statements.

Any amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of the date of
the Order.  A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xygypn from Leagle.com.  The
Plaintiffs may not add new claims or parties without leave of
Court.

In a stipulation dated Sept. 18, 2020, the Plaintiff has determined
not to amend his complaint, but to proceed with the Claims upheld
by the Court.  A copy of the Stipulation is available at
https://bit.ly/2IGwnEg from PacerMonitor.com.


LYFT INC: Order Modifying Briefing Sched for Class Cert. Bid Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re LYFT, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has entered
an order modifying the briefing schedule for the Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 26, 2020, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a
briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's amended complaint and the
Defendants' motion to dismiss per the Parties' joint proposal.  On
April 16, 2020, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff
filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation
of the Federal Securities Laws.

On May 17, 2020, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Lyft
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.  On June
11, 2020, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Lyft Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint.

On June 24, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation
to Extend the Briefing Schedule On Lyft Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  Pursuant to the Briefing Extension Order, the Lyft
Defendants filed their Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on July 9, 2020.  On Sept. 8, 2020, the Court issued its
Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

On Sept. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification.  The Lyft Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for
Class Certification is currently due to be filed on Oct. 9, 2020.

To accommodate for the press of business and ensure adequate time
for briefing, the counsel for the Parties have met and conferred,
and stipulated, subject to Court approval, to extend the date for
the Opposition from Oct. 9, 2020 to Jan. 12, 2021; the date for the
Plaintiff's Reply from Oct. 16, 2020 to Jan. 22, 2021; and the
hearing currently set for Dec. 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. will be set
for Feb. 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., or a date otherwise set by the
Court.

The extension of time will not alter the date of any event or
deadline already fixed by Court order.  

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the Parties stipulate, subject to
Court approval, that the briefing schedule for the Motion for Class
Certification will be modified as follows: (i) the Lyft Defendants
will file their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification by
Jan. 12, 2021, (ii) the Plaintiff will file a Reply in support of
his Motion for Class Certification by Jan.uary 22, 2021.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, Judge Gilliam so ordered, except the
noticed date for a hearing on the Motion for Class Certification
will be set for Feb. 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 13, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6nvq8yp from Leagle.com.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com --
Menlo Park, California, Elizabeth Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
-- San Francisco, California, Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice) --
andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice), Washington,
D.C., Colleen C. Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- San Diego,
California, Attorneys for Defendants Lyft, Inc., Logan Green, John
Zimmer, Brian Roberts, Prashant (Sean) Aggarwal, Jonathan
Christodoro, Ben Horowitz, Valerie Jarrett, David Lawee, Hiroshi
Mikitani, Ann Miura-Ko, and Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter.


M&M BEDDING: Fails to Pay OT to Sales Reps, Francis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY FRANCIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M&M BEDDING, LLD d/b/a EASY REST ADJUSTABLE
SLEEP SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01416-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
Dec. 3, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Francis was employed by the Defendant as sales
representatives.

M&M Bedding, LLD d/b/a Easy Rest Adjustable Sleep System sells
bedding furniture and adjustable bed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


M&R SCARSDALE: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Kitchen Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cesario Ortega Rojas, Luis Ortega Rojas, Elsa Noemi Lara Vega,
Marchelin Polanco, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. John Racanelli, M&R Scarsdale Restaurant, LLC
(d/b/a Pizza & Brew of Scarsdale), First Generation Hospitality,
LLC, and Public Pizza Italian Kitchen, Case No. 7:20-cv-10161
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to keep accurate
time records, failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages, failed
to pay a spread of hours premiums, and failed to provide correct
wage notices and pay stubs.

The Plaintiffs were kitchen staff employed in the Defendants'
restaurants.

The Defendants own various restaurants in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
          White Plains, NY, 10604
          Telephone: (914) 218-6190
          Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com

MALIBU BOATS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malibu Boats, LLC.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Malibu Boats, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05922 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

Malibu Boats -- https://www.malibuboats.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of recreational boats, founded in Merced, California
in 1982, and currently headquartered in Loudon, Tennessee with
additional production facilities in New South Wales, Australia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to data security incident.

On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.

Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.

Following the company's announcement of the Data Security Incident,
approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others
against the company in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident. All but one of the U.S. cases were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, pursuant to orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL").

The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally
purport to represent various classes of consumers, generally claim
to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by the
Company in connection with the Data Security Incident and assert a
variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
related relief.

Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed against the company
and certain of its current officers and directors on December 1,
2018, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with statements regarding the company's cybersecurity
systems and controls, and seeking certification of a class of
affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other related relief.

The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and
certain current and former members of the company's Board of
Directors, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty,
corporate waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and violations of
the federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified monetary
damages and restitution, changes to the Company's corporate
governance and internal procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and
other related relief.

A separate shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company
and certain of its officers and certain current and former members
of the company's Board of Directors, alleging claims and seeking
relief generally similar to the claims made and relief sought in
the other two derivative cases.

This case will not be consolidated with the MDL proceeding. The
company disputse the allegations in the lawsuits described above
and are vigorously defending against such claims.

The company had filed motions to dismiss in each of these cases,
some of which have been denied, but the cases generally remain at
an early stage.

There has been some consolidation of the Canadian cases, with five
cases now pending across five provinces, and the company expecta
there could be further consolidation in the future.

In April 2019, the company received a letter purportedly on behalf
of a shareholder of the Company (also one of the named plaintiffs
in the putative securities class action described above) demanding
that the company's Board of Directors take action against the
Company's current and certain former officers and directors to
recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
related claims arising from the Data Security Incident.

The Board of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to
investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee
has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation.
The committee's investigation is ongoing.

In addition, on August 18, 2020, a purported representative action
was brought against the company in the High Court of Justice for
England and Wales on behalf of an alleged claimant class of English
and Welsh residents alleging breaches of the General Data
Protection Regulation and/or the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 (the
"U.K. DPA") in connection with the Data Security Incident.

Marriott said, "We dispute all of the allegations in this purported
action and will vigorously defend against any such claims. On
November 5, 2020, the court issued an order with the consent of all
parties staying this action pending resolution of another case
raising similar issues, but not involving the Company, that is
pending before the U.K. Supreme Court."

Marriott International, Inc., incorporated on September 19, 1997,
is a lodging company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company
operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520 properties across the
world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott International operates in
three business segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service and International. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.

MDL 2323: Henry Appeals Order in Concussion Injury Suit to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated November 20, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS'
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC,
successor-in-interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is a multi-district litigation that was formed to
handle claims filed by former professional football players against
the NFL based on concussion-related injuries.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 29,
2020, Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania divided the
attorneys' fee award between Locks Law Firm and Langfitt Garner
PLLC, such that they receive 40% and 60% respectively, of the total
fee (15% of the monetary award).

Presently before the Court is the assertion of an Attorney Lien by
Locks Law against the Award granted to Representative Claimant
Tamra Alexander, on behalf of her husband, Settlement Class Member
Kermit Alexander, in the litigation that became part of the class
action. Locks Law seeks payment of attorneys' fees of up to as much
as 10% of the Award that has been authorized for Mr. Alexander, its
former client, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement ("CFA") that
it entered into in an earlier phase of the litigation.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Order that the Motion for Relief Under Article XXVII of the
Settlement Agreement or for Relief from Judgment was DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to raise the issue at a later time.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: National Football League
Player’s Concussion Injury Litigation, et al., Case No. 20-3401,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
December 1, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332-0444
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Aitan D. Goelman, Esq.
          Ezra B. Marcus, Esq.
          Megan S. McKoy, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: agoelman@zuckerman.com
                  emarcus@zuckerman.com
                  mmckoy@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Stone, Esq.
          EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
          300 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (203) 504-8425
          E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com

               - and -

          J.R. Wyatt, Esq.
          JR WYATT LAW PLLC
          49 West 37th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (215) 557-2776
          E-mail: justin@jrwyattlaw.com

MDL 2672: Plaintiffs Awarded $17,400 Costs in VW Clean Diesel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Order Relates To:
Dkt. Nos. 7640 & 7641, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California awarded the Plaintiffs $17,421.89 in costs.

Over the course of six years, Volkswagen sold nearly 500,000
Volkswagen -- and Audi-branded TDI clean diesel vehicles, which
they marketed as being environmentally friendly, fuel efficient,
and high performing.  Consumers were unaware, however, that
Volkswagen had secretly equipped these vehicles with a defeat
device that allowed Volkswagen to evade United States Environmental
Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board ("CARB")
emissions test procedures.  Specifically, the defeat device
produces regulation-compliant results when it senses the vehicle is
undergoing testing, but operates a less effective emissions control
system when the vehicle is driven under normal circumstances.  It
was only by using the defeat device that Volkswagen was able to
obtain Certificates of Conformity from EPA and Executive Orders
from CARB for its TDI diesel engine vehicles.  In reality, these
vehicles emit nitrogen oxides at a factor of up to 40 times over
the permitted limit.

The scandal led to numerous government actions and over a thousand
civil lawsuits, which were consolidated before the Court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The bulk of the civil
actions were resolved in two settlements (one concerning 2.0-liter
TDI vehicles and another for 3.0-liter TDI vehicles) approved by
the Court.

The Plaintiffs are 52 individual consumers who opted out of the
Class Settlements.  Their cases were stayed when they were
transferred into the MDL.  After the Bellwether Trial concluded,
the Court lifted the stay applicable to the Plaintiffs' cases.
Shortly afterward, Volkswagen made the Plaintiffs Rule 68 offers,
which they accepted.  Those offers provided that Volkswagen would
pay an amount for the Plaintiff's costs (including reasonable
attorneys' fees, if any) incurred in connection with the action
through the date on which the offer is made, in an amount to be
determined by the Court.

The Plaintiffs now seek $1,468,158.34 in fees and $120,044.23 in
costs.  The parties dispute the appropriate amount of both fees and
costs.  Volkswagen argues that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
fees or, in the alternative, that their requested fee award should
be substantially reduced.

Judge Breyer rejects Volkswagen's argument that the Plaintiffs are
not entitled to recover attorneys' fees at all.  The argument
distorts the Court's orders and the precedent Volkswagen relies on.
First, the third order Volkswagen relies on does not apply to
these Plaintiffs.  Second, even if that order applied to these
Plaintiffs, it would not foreclose their fee-shifting claims.
Finally, the sole authority Volkswagen cites to support its
position, Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., actually
demonstrates the deficiency of its argument.  Because Volkswagen
settled with the Plaintiffs when they still had viable CLRA claims,
the Plaintiffs prevailed on those claims, and are entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Volkswagen requests a 50% reduction of 41 hours billed for internal
communications.  The Plaintiffs do not dispute that excessive
inter-office communications are not recoverable, but argue it was
not an excessive amount of time given the length of the litigation,
the number of lawyers involved, and the fact that they ostensibly
have already taken "a chainsaw to their billing for this category."
The Judge agrees that it is an unreasonable amount of time to bill
for internal communications (especially given the fact that the
Plaintiffs likely overstaffed the case, leading to additional and
inefficient internal communications) and will apply a 50% reduction
to fees for the entries listed on Appendix K.

Finally, Volkswagen argues that any remaining hours should be
reduced by 50%, because the Plaintiffs have failed to justify
expending such a large amount of time during the stay in the case.
The Judge denied the proposed reduction is denied.  Some amount of
work was justified given the ongoing mediations and settlement
discussions during the stay, as well as the possibility that
litigation of these Plaintiffs' cases would commence shortly after
the stay was lifted.  To the extent the hours incurred were
excessive in light of the stay, the adjustments applied account for
the inefficiencies.

To show that the requested rates for their counsel are reasonable,
the Plaintiffs must produce satisfactory evidence that they are in
line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of
lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.  Affidavits
from comparably qualified practitioners in the same forum,
decisions of other courts, and the Court's own experience are all
appropriate guideposts for determining reasonable rates.  The Judge
addresses only the requested hourly rates contested by Volkswagen,
and approved the hourly rates that Volkswagen does not contest.

The Judge orders the following: Steve Mikhov's rate is reduced to
$500 an hour; Scott Wilson's rate is reduced to $500 an hour;
Russell Higgins' hourly rate is reduced from $450 to $400; Roger
Kirnos' and Lauren Ungs' hourly rates are reduced to $400 an hour
each; Christopher Swanson and Kristina Stephenson-Cheang's rates
are reduced to $350 an hour; Conor M. Kelly's hourly rate is
reduced to $350; Maite Colon's rate is reduced to $275 an hour;
Natalee Fisher, Michael Ouziel, Marisa Melero, Jonathan Cagliata,
Stephanie Ho, and Gregory Lehrmann's hourly rates, which range from
$200 to $250 an hour, are approved; Bryan Altman's rate is reduced
to $550 an hour; Fred Heather and Richard Buckner's $650 an hour is
approved; Aaron Allan's hourly rate is reduced to $550; Elias
Dabaie, Azin Valafar, Cynthia Organ, and Makoa Kawabata are awarded
the same rate approved for Swanson and Stephenson-Cheang: $350 an
hour; no fees will be awarded to Amber Hannah because Plaintiffs
fail to provide any explanation of her qualifications or
experience; Robert Peck is awarded a $650 an hour rate; Rowena
Santos and Gregory Yu's rates are reduced to $400 an hour; Jacob
Cutler and Tionna Dolin's hourly rate is $350; Paul Kiesel's rate
is reduced to $550 an hour; Jeffrey Koncius's hourly rate is
reduced to $550 an hour; Maria McConnell and Nicole Ramirezs hourly
rates are reduced to $350; Marc Poster's hourly rate of $650 is
approved; Gary Wax's $400 an hour rate is approved; and Meehan Rash
and Geoffrey Kehlmann's $350 hourly rates are approved.

The Judge directed the Parties to apply his analysis to the
Plaintiffs' most recent fees request, then file a joint proposed
order with a final fee award.  If the Parties cannot agree on the
correct amount of the fee award, they should instead file a
detailed explanation of their disputes regarding how to apply the
Order.  If they are unable to agree on the proper application of
the Court's rulings to the Plaintiffs' fee request, the Court may
have no choice but to estimate a reasonable fee award, in an amount
to be determined.

The Plaintiffs acknowledge that some of the costs they initially
sought, such as airfare for a private jet and $10,801 for a steak
dinner and breakfast buffet, do not meet the standard.  They have
therefore withdrawn $58,503 worth of costs from their initial
request.  Nevertheless, many of the remaining costs sought appear
to have been incurred in preparation for the Bellwether Trial and
are therefore not recoverable by these Plaintiffs.

Judge Breyer denied the following requested costs: all costs listed
under the category of "Deposition Costs" ($4,703.75); all costs
listed under the category "Expert Witness" ($66,564.96); the $50
incurred for "Rapid Legal Inv.: Delivery of CMS (courtesy copy),"
dated Sept. 6, 2019; all costs listed under the category of
"Travel," with the exception of the $40 incurred for "CMC
(5-28-19): Parking for Melanie," ($5,258.83); the $32.40 incurred
for "MK Litigation Solution Inv.: CMC (10-16-19)"; the $1,543.72
incurred for "Westlaw Online Research for Glaser (1/1/20)"; the
$252.90 and $3.40 incurred for "Document Access Fees for Glaser
(1/7/20)"; ll costs listed under "International Litigation Service"
($12,072.38); and all costs listed under "Decision Quest"
($12,140).  After these deductions, the Plaintiffs will be awarded
$17,421.89 in costs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer awarded the Plaintiffs
$17,421.89 in costs.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyu2k9wa from Leagle.com.


MDL 2795: $18.5MM Deal in CenturyLink Securities Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES
PRACTICES AND SECURITIES LITIGATION, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D.
Minn.), Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Class
Representative Service Awards, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The document relates to Case Nos. 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614,
17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943,
17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562, 18-1565, 18-1572 and
18-1573.

The multidistrict litigation was opened on Oct. 10, 2017.  On Jan.
4, 2018, the Court appointed Zimmerman Reed LLP, O'Mara Law Group,
and Geragos & Geragos as the Co-Lead Counsel, and established a
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee consisting of Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Henninger Garrison Davis LLC, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, and Roxanne
Conlin & Associates, LLC.

On Feb. 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("CCAC") against Defendant CenturyLink.  The CCAC
is brought by 33 named Plaintiffs.  Each named Plaintiff alleges
that he or she purchased internet and, in some cases, telephone
and/or television services from "CenturyLink."  Each Plaintiff
asserts sales, billing, or quality issues.

The CCAC asserts eight claims on behalf of a nationwide class:
Count 1: Violations of 47 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. and 47
C.F.R. Section 64.2401 (on behalf of all class members); Count 2:
Breach of Contract (on behalf of all class members); Count 3:
Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (on behalf of all
Arizona, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin subclass
members); Count 4: Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes
(on behalf of all Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, Washington, Oregon,
Missouri, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Idaho subclass members);
Count 5: Violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law ("LUPTA") (on behalf of all class members);
Count 6: Negligent Misrepresentation (on behalf of all class
members); Count 7: Fraudulent Inducement (on behalf of all class
members); and Count 8: Unjust Enrichment (on behalf of all class
members).

The Settlement creates a minimum of $18.5 million in settlement
funds.  Of that amount, $3 million of the fund will be placed in a
Notice and Administration Fund.  If the costs for administration
exceed $3 million, CenturyLink will pay half of any additional
costs for the next million.  An amount of $15.5 million will be
placed in a non-reversionary Primary Fund that will fund Settlement
Class Members' timely and valid claims, Settlement Class
Representative Service Payments, and the Fees, Costs, and Expense
Award.

The Class Members are defined as: "All persons or entities in the
United States who are identified by CenturyLink as a residential or
small business customer and who, during the Class Period, had an
account for local or long distance telephone, internet, or
television services with one or more of the Operating Companies.
The Class Period is Jan. 1, 2014 to Jan. 24, 2020."

The Settlement provides compensation for the Settlement Class
Members, who assert that they paid CenturyLink for unauthorized,
undisclosed, or otherwise improper charges and were not previously
compensated for their overpayment.

The Class Members may make one of two types of claims: 1) a Flat
Payment Claim for $30 times the Pro Rata Multiplier, which requires
no documentation beyond the Claim Form or 2) a Supported Document
Claim, for which Claimants will receive 40% of the amount of their
documented overpayments multiplied by the Pro Rata Multiplier.  For
either type of claim, the claimant must timely submit a Claim Form
to the Settlement Administrator.

The Settlement Administrator will calculate the Pro Rata Multiplier
by dividing the Net Primary Fund by the total amount claimed.  The
total amount claimed is defined as all valid and timely Supported
Document Claims multiplied by the Litigation Risk Factor plus all
Flat Payment Claims.

The Settlement also requires CenturyLink to certify its compliance
for three years with certain changes to its business practices in
all states in which it does business.  

The Settlement Agreement provided two methods of notice for current
CenturyLink customers: Bill Notice (electronic or paper) and
through the CenturyLink website.  As of Nov. 5, 2020, $3.823
million had been spent on Notice and Administration.  The
Settlement Administrator estimates that the current and remaining
administration costs will be $3.92 million.  CenturyLink also spent
approximately $37,500 effecting notice to the Class Members who are
current CenturyLink customers and do not receive electronic
billing.  The Settlement Class Members have submitted 115,240
timely Flat Payment claims and 2,213 timely Supported Document
claims.  

The estimated total value of the Flat Payment Claims prior to
applying the pro rata multiplier, $30 times 115,240 claims, is
approximately $3,457,200.  The Plaintiffs assert that, assuming an
average value of $1,000, which is far higher than likely, the value
of the 2,213 Supported Document Claims would be $2,213,000.
Therefore, even if all of the submitted Flat Payment and Supported
Document Claims are deemed fully timely and valid; the Primary Fund
pays half of the notice and administration costs between $3 and $4
million as required under the Settlement Agreement; and the Court
grants the full amount requested for attorneys' fees ($6,166,667),
expenses ($263,671.46), and the Class Representative Service
Payments ($85,000), it would amount to approximately $12.7 of the
$15.5 million Primary Fund.  Thus, a positive multiplier will be
added to all claims submitted by the Class Members.

CenturyLink is directed to provide the Settlement Funds to the
Settlement Administrator according to the terms and timeline stated
in the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Administrator is
further directed to issue payments to each Settlement Class Member
who submitted a valid and timely Claim Form (i.e., each Authorized
Claimant) according to the terms and timeline stated in the
Settlement Agreement.

At the request of the parties at the final fairness hearing and for
good cause shown, claims received by the Settlement Administrator
that were postmarked within 14 days from their original deadline
for submission will be considered timely claims.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded $6,166,667 in attorneys' fees
and $263,671.46 in costs and expenses.  The Payment will be made
pursuant to the manner and timeline stated in the Settlement
Agreement.  The Settlement Class Representatives and Plaintiff
Carrillo are awarded $2,500 (each) as an individual settlement
award.  The Payment will be made pursuant to the manner and
timeline stated in the Settlement Agreement.

No person or entity will have any claim against CenturyLink,
CenturyLink's counsel, Settlement Class Representatives, the
Settlement Class Members, the Settlement Class Counsel, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel or the Settlement Administrator based on
distributions and payments made in accordance with the Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Memorandum of Law &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6h9bygs from
Leagle.com.

Carolyn G. Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Brian C.
Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Hart L. Robinovitch
-- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- and Michael J. Laird, Zimmerman
Reed LLP, Plaintiffs' Interim Co. Lead and Liaison Counsel.

Mark M. O'Mara, Alyssa J. Flood, and Caitlin Reese , O'Mara Law
Group, and Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- and Benjamin J.
Meiselas, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead
Counsel.

Daniel C. Hedlund and Michelle J. Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee Chair; Richard M. Hagstrom --
rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- and Anne T. Regan, Hellmuth & Johnson,
PLLC, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, PC, and
Francois M. Blaudeau -- Francois@southermedlaw.com -- W. Lewis
Garrison, Jr., Christopher B. Hood, and James F. McDonough, III --
Jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC,
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.

T. Ryan Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, P.C., Michael Fuller,
Olsen Daines PC, Brandon C. Fernald, Fernald Law Group LLP, Bonner
C. Walsh, Walsh PLLC, Alfred M. Sanchez, and Orin Kurtz, Gardy &
Notis, LLP, Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.

Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- David A. Vogel --
dvogel@cooley.com -- and Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP; Carolyn J. Fairless, Michael T. Williams, Andrew
Unthank, and Theresa Wardon Benz, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP; and
William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com -- and David M. Aafedt --
daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., and Jerry W.
Blackwell, Blackwell Burke P.A., Counsel for Defendant CenturyLink,
Inc. and the Proposed Intervenors.

Warren D. Postman -- wdp@kellerlenkner.com -- and Ashley C. Keller
-- ack@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC; and Robert J.
Gilbertson -- bgilbertson@greeneespel.com -- Samuel J. Clark, Faris
Rashid, and Virginia R. McCalmont, Greene Espel PLLP; Counsel for
Proposed Intervenors Keisha Covington, Daniel Sokey, Tiffany Van
Riper, James Watkins, Jaclyn Finafrock, and Kelly Johnson.


MDL 2795: Limited Intervention Allowed to Litigate Arbitration Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION, MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.), Judge Michael J.
Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part and denied in part the Proposed Intervenors and
Movants' Motion to Intervene, Compel Arbitration, and Stay
Proceedings.

The document relates to Case Nos. 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614,
17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943,
17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562, 18-1565, 18-1572 and
18-1573.

Movants Keisha Covington, Daniel Sokey, Tiffany Van Riper, James
Watkins, Jaclyn Finafrock, and Kelly Johnson, are current or former
CenturyLink customers, who wish to resolve their consumer contract
disputes with CenturyLink through individual arbitration.  The
Movants aver that they have a right to individually arbitrate their
claims against CenturyLink under their contract with CenturyLink.
All the Movants are represented by the law firm of Keller Lenkner,
LLC.

In December 2019, Keller submitted 1,000 simultaneous arbitration
demands against CenturyLink to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) on behalf of a subset of its CenturyLink claimant clients.
Movants Covington, Sokey, Van Riper, and Watkins were among those
claimants.  Movants Jaclyn Finafrock and Kelly Johnson were not
listed.

On January 9, 2020, CenturyLink informed Keller that it was
exercising its contractual right to terminate and revoke the
arbitration contracts.  CenturyLink stated that the Movants had
breached the arbitration clause in their contracts with CenturyLink
and that CenturyLink is revoking and terminating their Arbitration
Agreement effective immediately.  The letter further stated that
the remainder of the contracts between CenturyLink and the
consumers, apart from the arbitration clause in Paragraph 17,
remained in place.

The Movants seek to compel arbitration under the arbitration
provision in Section 17 of the CenturyLink(R) High-Speed Internet
Subscriber Agreement, V52.091819, entitled the "Dispute Resolution
and Arbitration" provision.  According to Keller, each Movant
accepted a CenturyLink service agreement containing the arbitration
clause.  The contract between the Movants and CenturyLink also
provides that it will be governed by Colorado law.

CenturyLink considers the pre-filing presentation of claim
requirement an important provision of the Arbitration Contract
because it provides it the opportunity to evaluate and resolve
claims before incurring the costs of legal proceedings.  It avers
that the pre-filing dispute resolution procedures resolve most
customers' issues.

During the Nov. 19, 2020 settlement final approval hearing, Keller
informed the Court that Movants Covington, Sokey, Watkins,
Finafrock, and Johnson had opted out of the Settlement Class to
continue to pursue their arbitration claims.  Movant Van Riper
stopped responding to Keller and did not submit a valid opt-out
request. As Keller previously admitted, many clients who initially
wanted Keller to arbitrate their claims against CenturyLink later
changed their mind and decided to join in the class settlement.

Judge Davis states that he will grant the Movants' motion to
intervene to allow limited intervention solely for the purpose of
litigating their motion to compel arbitration.  CenturyLink agrees
to the limited intervention.  He finds that he may properly
consider the Movants' motion to intervene.  First, he concludes
that the Movants' motion to intervene is timely.  Second, he
rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the temporary injunction in
the Court's Preliminary Approval Order prohibits the Movants from
intervening.  Logic dictates that the phrase "any class action"
does not include the federal class action.

Judge Davis, however, will deny the Movants' request for a full
intervention as of right or permissive intervention, because they
cannot show that they are not already adequately represented in the
case by the Class Counsel.  Both intervention as of right and
permissive intervention require that the proposed intervenor is not
adequately represented by the existing parties.

Although he concludes that full intervention is inappropriate, the
Judge holds that the Movants have demonstrated an interest in the
transaction that is the subject of the action and have demonstrated
that they may have that interest impaired by a class action
settlement to which they object, despite their option to opt out.
Thus, Judge Davis concludes, as CenturyLink concedes, that
permitting limited intervention to allow Movants to argue their
motion to compel arbitration is appropriate in the case.

The Judge now turns to the Movants' arguments regarding their
motion to compel arbitration.  First, he finds that the Movants
have sufficiently shown that their factual allegations touch on
matters covered by the Arbitration Contract.  Second, the language
in the Delegation Carve Out provision is ambiguous regarding
whether the arbitrator decides arbitrability.  Third, because the
Movants did not materially breach the Arbitration Contract,
CenturyLink's purported revocation and termination of Movants'
arbitration contracts was ineffective.  The question of whether the
Movants properly fulfilled the procedural prerequisites for filing
an arbitration claim is one for the arbitrator.

Finally, Judge Davis will deny the Movants' motion to stay the
entire consumer MDL proceeding until they have completed their
arbitrations against CenturyLink.  He finds that staying litigation
among the 17.2 million non-arbitrating class members and
CenturyLink when the Settlement has been approved and the claims
have already been submitted is nonsensical, will prejudice class
members by delaying their recovery from a Sefendant that seeks to
pay them.  There is no risk of inconsistent rulings because the
arbitrations are individual arbitrations, with no class claims, and
the class claims are being resolved through a settlement agreement
with no Court ruling on liability and that excludes any class
member who opts out.

Accordingly, Judge Davis granted in part and denied in part the
Proposed Intervenors and Movants' Motion.  He granted the Movant's
motion to intervene insofar as they are permitted limited
intervention for the purpose of litigating their motion to compel
arbitration only.  He granted Movants Covington, Sokey, Watkins,
Finafrock, and Johnson's motion to compel arbitration against
CenturyLink.  Movant Tiffany Van Riper's motion to compel
arbitration is denied as moot.  The Movants' motion to stay is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6gyoovz from Leagle.com.

Carolyn G. Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Brian C.
Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Hart L. Robinovitch
-- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- and Michael J. Laird, Zimmerman
Reed LLP, Plaintiffs' Interim Co. Lead and Liaison Counsel.

Mark M. O'Mara, Alyssa J. Flood, and Caitlin Reese , O'Mara Law
Group, and Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- and Benjamin J.
Meiselas, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead
Counsel.

Daniel C. Hedlund and Michelle J. Looby, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee Chair; Richard M. Hagstrom --
rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- and Anne T. Regan, Hellmuth & Johnson,
PLLC, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, PC, and
Francois M. Blaudeau -- Francois@southermedlaw.com -- W. Lewis
Garrison, Jr., Christopher B. Hood, and James F. McDonough, III --
Jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC,
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.

T. Ryan Langley, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, P.C., Michael Fuller,
Olsen Daines PC, Brandon C. Fernald, Fernald Law Group LLP, Bonner
C. Walsh , Walsh PLLC, Alfred M. Sanchez, and Orin Kurtz, Gardy &
Notis, LLP, Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class.

Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- David A. Vogel --
dvogel@cooley.com -- and Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP; Carolyn J. Fairless, Michael T. Williams, Andrew
Unthank, and Theresa Wardon Benz, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP; and
William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com -- and David M. Aafedt --
daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., and Jerry W.
Blackwell, Blackwell Burke P.A., Counsel for Defendant CenturyLink,
Inc. and the Proposed Intervenors.

Warren D. Postman -- wdp@kellerlenkner.com -- and Ashley C. Keller
-- ack@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC; and Robert J.
Gilbertson -- bgilbertson@greeneespel.com -- Samuel J. Clark, Faris
Rashid, and Virginia R. McCalmont, Greene Espel PLLP; Counsel for
Proposed Intervenors Keisha Covington, Daniel Sokey, Tiffany Van
Riper, James Watkins, Jaclyn Finafrock, and Kelly Johnson.


MEDICAL ADVANTAGE: Misclassifies Trainers, Jones Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL ADVANTAGE GROUP, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07128 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 2, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a Trainer, claim
that the Defendant misclassified her and other similarly situated
trainers as an independent contractor and compensate them on an
hourly basis. Despite regularly working over 40 hours each week,
the Plaintiff and other trainers were denied overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for
all hours they worked over 40 each week.

Medical Advantage Group provides information technology support
services in the healthcare and other industries across the country.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: 312-233-1550
          Fax: 312-233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


MEMORIAL HERMANN: Woody DTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER WOODY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No.
2020-71317, was removed from the Texas 80th District Court of
Harris County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on December 7, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-04163 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's request for a declaratory
judgment and relief under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(DTPA) relating to the Defendant's charging of an allegedly
undisclosed Evaluation and Management (E&M) charge.

Memorial Hermann Health System is a not-for-profit health system
based in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Jeff Potts, Esq.
         Jarod R. Stewart, Esq.
         SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P.
         717 Texas Avenue, Suite 2800
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (713) 221-2300
         Facsimile: (713) 221-2320
         E-mail: jpotts@skv.com
                 jstewart@skv.com

MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Bryant Prisoners Suit Against MDOC
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REO BRYANT et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONNIE HORTON et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-131 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Paul L.
Maloney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Northern Division, dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint
for failure to state a claim.

The case is a civil rights action brought by 20 state prisoners
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs presently are
incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC")
at the Chippewa Correctional Facility ("URF") in Kincheloe,
Chippewa County, Michigan.  The events about which they complain
occurred at that facility.  The Plaintiffs sue MDOC Director Heidi
Washington, URF Warden Horton, and unknown custody, civilian, and
food service staff named as "John Does 1-99."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to take important
measures to control the spread of COVID-19 and protect inmates at
URF.  None of the allegations recited in the complaint occurred
after April 14, 2020.  As of that date or before, the Defendants
allegedly permitted staff to arrive at the prison without valid
personal protective equipment ("PPEs"), such as masks, and staff
members took off their PPEs in the mess hall and while they were in
close proximity to prisoners.  Staff also discouraged prisoners
from wearing gloves.  Further, staff allegedly crowded into the
officer space during mass movement, breaking social-distancing
rules. Defendants did not provide prisoners with bleach to clean
the unit on at least one occasion.  

In addition, officers performed pat-down searches without wearing
gloves or used the same gloves on multiple prisoners.  The
Defendants did not maintain social distancing between staff and
prisoners, and prisoners were required to gather in groups of up to
50 to 75 men at various points.  Essential prisoner workers, such
as kitchen and janitorial staff, were required to work in close
proximity to one another and staff, and they have not been provided
extra "life preserving gear or extra pay."  Finally, despite the
fact that some number of prisoners at URF have underlying health
conditions and suffered vague symptoms, those prisoners were denied
a COVID-19 diagnostic test.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' conduct has violated their rights under the Eighth
Amendment.

The Plaintiffs request class certification, stating that the
conditions at URF place all prisoners at risk of contracting
COVID-19, creating a substantial risk of serious injury or death,
particularly among those who have underlying health conditions.
They also request preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an
order prohibiting the placement of more than one prisoner in each
cell and an order requiring the reopening of the Kinross
Correctional Facility.

In addition to their request for preliminary injunctive relief, the
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Because the Plaintiffs are incarcerated pro se litigants, Judge
Maloney finds that they are not appropriate representatives of a
class.  Therefore, Judge Maloney denied the Plaintiffs' request for
class certification.

Regarding their Eighth Amendment claim, the Plaintiffs do not
allege that they have come into contact with any individual who has
COVID-19, and no COVID-19 cases have been reported at URF since the
onset of the pandemic.  The MDOC has taken extensive steps to
address the risk of COVID-19 to inmates statewide.  Such actions
demonstrate the opposite of a disregard of a serious health risk.
Although he is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' general concerns
about the COVID-19 virus, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
failed to allege facts showing that the Defendants' handling of the
COVID-19 crisis violated their Eighth Amendment rights.

Finally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to order preliminary
injunctive relief to limit cell occupancy and reopen a prison.
Because the complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a
claim, Judge Maloney denied the Plaintiffs' motion as moot.

Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs' complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).  The Court also denied
the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and preliminary
injunctive relief.

Although he concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims are properly
dismissed, the Judge does not conclude that any issue the
Plaintiffs might raise on appeal would be frivolous.  Accordingly,
the Judge does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in
good faith.  Should the Plaintiffs appeal the decision, the Judge
will assess the $505 appellate filing fee pursuant to Section
1915(b)(1), unless the Plaintiffs are barred from proceeding in
forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of Section
1915(g).  If they are barred, they will be required to pay the $505
appellate filing fee in one lump sum.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ol9fys from Leagle.com.


MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: McCoy Sues Over Decline in Stock Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan McCoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES, INC. and REMY LUTHRINGER, Case
No. 1:20-cv-12176-GAO (D. Mass., Dec. 8, 2020), is brought on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Minerva
Neurosciences, Inc. common stock between May 15, 2017 and November
30, 2020, inclusive; for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business which in turn caused
the Company's stock prices to decline.

Minerva's drug candidate roluperidone, MIN-101, is in development
for the treatment of negative symptoms in patients with
schizophrenia. In October 2016, the Company had previously reported
positive results from a Phase 2b trial of roluperidone for this
treatment, asserting that the "data show continuous improvement in
negative symptoms, stable positive symptoms and extended safety
profile."

On May 15, 2017, the start of the class period, Minerva announced
via press release that it would proceed to a Phase 3 clinical trial
for MIN-101 following a successful "end-of-Phase 2" meeting with
the FDA. In this press release, Defendant Luthringer was quoted as
saying that "our discussion with the FDA has helped to confirm our
Phase 3 trial design, which is similar to our previous Phase 2b
trial design. We believe that positive data from the Phase 3 trial,
along with the positive data from the Phase 2b trial, may form the
basis for the future submission of a New Drug Application for
roluperidone with the FDA." The FDA, however, did not agree with
Minerva that positive data from the Phase 2b trial could form the
basis of a future NDA for MIN-101, or that the Phase 3 trial was a
well-designed trial. Thus, Luthringer's statements about FDA
feedback were materially misleading.

On May 29, 2020, Minerva released the results of its Phase 3
clinical trial. The Company announced that the studied "doses were
not statistically significantly different from placebo at Week 12
on the primary endpoint or the key secondary endpoint." In other
words, the Phase 3 clinical trial failed. On this news, the
Company's stock price plummeted from a May 28, 2020 closing price
of $13.47 per share to a May 29, 2020 closing price of just $3.71
per share.

On December 1, 2020, before the markets opened, Minerva issued a
press release revealing that it had "received official meeting
minutes from the November 10, 2020 Type C meeting with the" FDA.
Minerva disclosed for the first time that the "FDA advised that the
Phase 2b study is problematic because it did not use the commercial
formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the
United States. On this news, Minerva's stock price fell from its
November 30, 2020 closing price of $3.89 per share to a December 1,
2020 closing price of $2.89 per share. This represents a one day
drop of approximately 25.7%.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the truth about the feedback received from the FDA concerning the
"end-of-Phase 2" meeting, the Phase 2b study did not use the
commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely
outside of the United States, the failure of the Phase 3 study to
meet its primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study
incapable of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness, the
Company's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an
NDA, reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA would
lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were
inadequate and not well-controlled and as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Nathan McCoy acquired and held shares of Minerva at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Minerva purports to be a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of a portfolio of
product candidates to treat patients suffering from central nervous
diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 jake@blockleviton.com
                 steti@blockleviton.com


MM 879: Court Won't Revise Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA CRUZ; MARIA
MADRIGAL; LOURDES BAIZ; and CHRISTIE GOODMAN, individually,
residing in California, v. MM 879, INC.; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES,
INC.; THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC; MERRY MAIDS LP; and MM MAIDS
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Troy L. Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration.

On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On September 8, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, arguing they could not be held liable for the
employment-related practices of a franchisee based on the
undisputed facts, and were therefore entitled to judgment
dismissing all claims against them as a matter of law.

On January 18, 2019, the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointing the named
Plaintiffs as class representatives.

On the same day, the Court entered an order granting Defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' joint employment
theory of liability and denying the motion as to Plaintiffs'
ostensible agency of liability.

The Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of those orders
on February 1, 2019. In support of their motion, the Defendants
cited the Ninth Circuit's intervening decision in Salazar v.
McDonald's Corp., 944 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2019), wherein the
court held that a franchisor could not be held liable for wage and
hour violations under an ostensible agency theory pursuant to Wage
Order 5-2001.

On January 31, 2020, the Court -- now bound by Salazar III --
granted the Defendants' motion for reconsideration and dismissed
ServiceMaster, Merry Maids, and MM Maids from the action. The
Plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration on February 28,
2020.

The lawsuit alleges violations of various California wage and hour
laws. The case was removed to the federal District Court on October
14, 2015.

A copy of the Court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JEByW1 at no extra charge.[CC]

MR. COOPER: Faces Dabbs Suit Over Failure to Pay Property Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DABBS; and AMANDA DABBS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MR. COOPER GROUP INC.; and
JOHN DOES, Case No. 5:20-cv-01918-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Dec. 2, 2020) is
an action arising from the Defendant's failure to pay property
taxes and insurance with monies paid by the Plaintiffs as part of
their monthly mortgage payment.

According to the complaint, on or about March 2020, the Plaintiffs
were notified by the Jefferson County Tax Collector's office that
their property taxes for 2019 had not been paid and thus were
delinquent. The Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants immediately
asking to pay the delinquent 2019 property taxes. The Defendants
advised the issue was under investigation.

In early June 2020, the Plaintiffs were once again notified their
taxes had not been paid and that the property was at risk of being
sold at a tax sale auction. The Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants
immediately and were advised the issue was still under
investigation and that the Plaintiffs were not at risk of losing
their property at a tax sale.

As a result of the Plaintiffs' 2019 property taxes never being
paid, their property was purchased by a third party in July 2020 at
a tax sale auction.

Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers home loan services for single-family residences. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey L. Lott, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
          100 South Main Street
          Post Office Box 382
          Booneville, MS 38829
          Telephone: (662) 728-9733
          Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
          E-mail: clott@langstonlott.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Decertify Class in "McNamee" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES D. MCNAMEE, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01948-ALM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion for decertification of the Class.

The Court said, "Any shortcomings in Class Counsel's conduct with
respect to giving notice to class members and to discovery do not
rise to the level of a failure to prosecute vigorously this action.
Nor is there cause to believe Class Counsel is inadequate for other
reasons. Thus, decertification of the class on the grounds of
inadequacy of Class Counsel is not proper. The Court does not
conclude that Class Counsel is unable to represent adequately the
interests of the class"

This case concerns letters that the Defendant Nationstar sent to
Mr. McNamee and others similarly situated. Mr. McNamee filed a
complaint on October 17, 2014, on behalf of himself and a putative
class, claiming Nationstar sent correspondence 1 in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On March 30, 2018, this
Court certified four subclasses. On May 22, 2019, this Court
modified the class definition only of Classes 1 and 2, excluding
individuals whose debt Nationstar acquired before it went into
default. On July 31, 2020, Nationstar filed its motion seeking
decertification of all four subclasses, on the grounds that Class
Counsel has failed to represent adequately the interests of the
class.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 7, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m9Lq70 at no
extra charge.[CC]

NUSIL TECHNOLOGY: Bell to Supplement Disclosures on Claimed Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN BELL, individually and on behalf of members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUSIL
TECHNOLOGY LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-0061-NONE JLT
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to compel the Plaintiff to supplement his
initial disclosures, particularly related to his claimed damages.

Bell is a former employee of Nusil Technology and Avantar
Performance Materials.  He asserts the Defendants failed to
compensate him and other employees for all hours worked and missed
meal periods and/or rest breaks.  He seeks to hold the Defendants
liable for wage and hour violations under California law.

The Plaintiff asserts he was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from approximately May 2013 to
approximately May 2018.  He alleges, the Defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California.

On Oct. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action in Kern County
Superior Court, raising the following causes of action: (1) unpaid
overtime in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; (2)
unpaid meal period premiums in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Sections 226.7 and 512(a); (3) unpaid rest period premiums in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226.7; (4) unpaid minimum
wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and
1197.1; (5) failure to pay timely final wages in violation of
violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; (6) untimely
wages during employment in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section
204; (7) non-compliant wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 226(a); (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records
in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 1174(d); unreimbursed
business expenses in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 2800 and
2802; and (10) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Sections 17200, et.
seq.

On Jan. 13, 2020, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, thereby
initiating the action in the Court.  They Defendants assert the
Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action, and pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act.  According to them, the amount in
controversy, based on the allegations in the Complaint, is
conservatively a minimum of $5,284,259.47, not including attorneys'
fees.  Further, they assert that if the Complaint is reasonably
construed as seeking one missed rest period and one missed meal
period each day, the potential exposure increases by $11,726,19540.


The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on Jan. 28, 2020, arguing in
part that the amount in controversy is not required for the Class
Action Fairness Act.  While the motion to remand remains under
submission before the Court, the Plaintiff served his initial
disclosures required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on July 8, 2020.  On July 27, 2020, the Defendants
informed the Plaintiff's counsel that his initial disclosures "were
deficient" because he did not provide a description of damages
claimed and inquired whether the Plaintiff would supplement the
disclosures.

After the Plaintiff did not respond, the Defendants again contacted
the Plaintiff's counsel regarding the deficiencies on July 31,
2020, to which there was no response.  The Defendants report they
contacted counsel for a third time on Aug. 3, 2020, asking that the
Plaintiff respond to the letter and supplement his Initial
Disclosures, and also explained the need for a meet and confer
conference.  According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff provided an
evasive response which did not respond to these questions.

On August 5 and 6, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's counsel
seeking a time to meet and confer regarding the dispute.  The
Plaintiff's counsel responded that they were not available for a
call until August 14, and the parties had a conference on that
date.  Because the parties were unable to come to an agreement, the
Defendants filed the motion to compel the Plaintiff to supplement
his initial disclosures now pending before the Court on Aug. 19,
2020.

The parties failed to file a joint written statement regarding the
discovery dispute.  On the date of the filing deadline -- Sept. 2,
2020 -- Melissa Fassett, counsel for the Defendants, filed a
declaration at 12:03 p.m.  Ms. Fassett reported she sent a draft of
the joint statement to the Plaintiff's Counsel on August 19 and a
followed up on Aug. 20, 2020.  She reported that as of the time of
filing, the Plaintiff did not provide her with information to be
included.  Approximately 20 minutes later, the Plaintiff's counsel
transmitted the Plaintiff's portion of the proposed joint statement
to the Defendants' counsel and requested that the Defendants'
counsel provide her consent for the Plaintiff's counsel to file the
statement.  After the Defendants did not agree to the portions
prepared by the Plaintiff, Ms. Younger filed a declaration
attaching the Plaintiff's portion to the statement at 6:09 p.m.

In his initial disclosures, the Plaintiff stated that he on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, is seeking damages,
including unpaid minimum and overtime wages; premium wages;
liquidated damages; actual, consequential, and incidental losses
and damages, according to proof; restitution; interest; and
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs.  

He indicated also that he is currently unable to access the full
extent of the Defendants' wrongful conduct at this early state of
litigation.  The amount controversy for him, including but no
limited to claims to compensatory damages, restitution, penalties,
wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of attorneys' fees is less
than $75,000.  The Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement the
disclosure when he discovers facts and/or documents relevant to the
computation of damages.

The Defendants contend the disclosure fails to comply with the
requirements of Rule 26, because the Plaintiff did nothing to
quantify the damages he claims to have incurred in each of the
claims he has asserted.  They observe, FRCP 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)
expressly obligates a plaintiff to provide a computation of each
category of damages claimed, accompanied by the documents
supporting that claim.

Magistrate Judge Thurston holds that because the Plaintiff has
identified 10 causes of action in his complaint and asserts he
personally is seeking damages for these causes of action, he is
obligated under Rule 26 to identify the damages claimed for each
cause of action.  For example, he must identify his hourly rates
for purposes of calculating lost wages, or meal and rest period
premiums, and his own unreimbursed business expenses.  Such
information is within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and does not
require class payroll data for calculation.  For these reasons, the
Magistrate Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's initial disclosures
fail to provide the information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to compel the
Plaintiff to supplement his Initial Disclosures.  The Plaintiff is
directed to provide the calculations of damages he is asserting on
his own behalf, for each claim asserted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y42n63t5 from Leagle.com.


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Koger et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT & Sick Leave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA KOGER and DWAYNE REESE, Plaintiffs v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., a Missouri company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01032 (M.D.
Tenn., December 1, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant seeking damages for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and damages pursuant to the Families
First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
employee to perform tasks involving the preparation of inventory
for shipping, loading and unloading semi-truck trailers, and to
perform paperwork associated with shipping and receiving
materials.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant did not compensate them
for the time spent working through automatically deducted lunch
breaks and beyond their scheduled shifts to load and unload
trailers, as well as manage the associated paperwork as required by
the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay them
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the FLSA for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours
per week. Allegedly, such unlawful common plan, policy and practice
have unjustly enriched the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant failed to provide paid sick leave for
Plaintiff Koger when he became sick and was exhibiting several
symptoms of COVID-19 on or around April 3, 2020.

O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. is a retailer of automotive aftermarket
parts, tools, supplies, equipment and accessories in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and –

          Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Tel: (615) 851-1776
          Fax: (615) 859-7033
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Olivares Wage Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LESLIE OLIVARES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OPERATING A, L.P.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00039092-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on December
7, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02381-GPC-DEB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged miscalculation of the
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay that resulted to unpaid sick pay
and unpaid overtime.

Odyssey Healthcare Operating A, L.P. is a provider of home
healthcare services based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
         Hardev S. Chhokar, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
                 Hardev.Chhokar@jacksonlewis.com

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kane, et al. Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH KANE, et al., v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN
OUTLET, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02261-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification.

The court finds that denial of conditional certification is
inappropriate in this case in light of the vast array of different
job duties presented in the relatively small sample of the
potential collective members under current consideration. The court
would need to conduct individualized inquiries into each
Plaintiff's job duties -- a task ill-suited for collective
resolution. Therefore, on these additional grounds, the court will
deny Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

This action was brought on behalf of a putative collective
comprised of Co-Team Leaders (CTL) employed by the Defendant
Ollie's from March 12, 2015 to present day.

The Plaintiffs are six former CTLs who allege that they were
misclassified as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA
since they largely performed the work of hourly employees, rather
than the managerial work listed in Ollie's CTL job description.

The Plaintiffs commenced this civil action on March 12, 2018, in
the District of New Jersey alleging FLSA violations for unpaid
overtime wages and that they were misclassified as exempt under the
FLSA's overtime provisions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oz7HwP at no extra charge.[CC]

ON POINT HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Williams Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUNETT WILLIAMS, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ON POINT HOME HEALTH, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and TERRY EZELL, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-02192-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 2,
2020) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Lead Certified
Nursing Assistant (CNA) from approximately October 2018 until May
13, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified by the
Defendant as an independent contractor. Despite the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks, the
Defendant did not pay her overtime compensation at one and one-half
times her regular rate of pay for overtime hours she worked.

On Point Home Health, LLC provides home health and nursing staffing
services throughout Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Bruce A. Mount, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Tel: (407) 574-4999
          Fax: (833) 523-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  bmount@theleachfirm.com
                  yhernandez@theleachfirm.com



ORCHID STREET: Gray Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIA GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORCHID STREET ENTERPRISES, LLC, and JIM
CARRANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10225 (S.D.N.Y., December 4,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated bartenders the required minimum wages, failing
to comply with notice requirements, failing to pay wages upon
termination, retaliating for complaining about FLSA and NYLL
violations, and failing to pay spread of hours compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender at the Skinny Bar located
at 174 Orchard Street, New York, New York from approximately June
2019 through September 2020.

Orchid Street Enterprises, LLC is the owner and operator of Skinny
Bar with its principal place of business at 174 Orchid Street, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Julia Klein, Esq.
         KLEIN LAW GROUP OF NY PLLC
         120 East 79th Street, Suite 1A
         New York, NY 10021
         Telephone: (347) 292-8170
         E-mail: jklein@kleinlegalgroup.com

OREGON: Loses Bid to Dismiss J.N. Suit v. Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anna Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case J.N., et al., Plaintiffs, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00096-AA (D. Or.)
for lack of standing.

In the putative class action, four Oregon public school children
with disabilities and the Council of Parent Attorneys and
Advocates, Inc. ("COPAA") assert claims under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("Title II"), and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act against the Oregon Department of Education
("ODE"), ODE Director and Assistant Superintendent of Public
Instruction Colt Gill, and Oregon Governor and Superintendent of
Public Instruction Katherine Brown.  

Plaintiffs E.O., J.V., B.M., J.N., and COPAA bring the action on
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated Oregon students who are
eligible under the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504 for special
education and related services and are currently being subjected to
a shortened school day or are at substantial risk of being
subjected to a shortened school day due to their disability-related
behaviors.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the IDEA, Title II of the ADA,
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging a systemic
failure of policies and procedures that deny them a FAPE and that
result in discrimination.  Specifically, they allege that the state
of Oregon has known for years that many Oregon public schools have
unnecessarily and unlawfully shortened the school day for children
with disability-related behaviors.  They allege that the State has
an affirmative statutory duty to monitor and assist the school
districts and enforce the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504
provisions, and that the State has failed to fulfill its statutory
duty under these statutes due to several systemic deficiencies.
The Plaintiffs further allege that these deficiencies have resulted
in a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") denial and
discrimination to the named Plaintiffs and others like them.  They
seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing.  They argue
that: (1) although E.O.'s school day is currently shortened, he
suffers no actual injury; (2) the other named Plaintiffs suffer no
imminent harm because state and federal laws provide procedural
safeguards against unlawfully shortened school days; (3) the
alleged injuries are not "fairly traceable" to the Defendants'
actions nor are they likely to be redressed by defendants because
the harm depends on the independent actions of school districts and
parents, and the complaint itself demonstrates that the state's
existing procedures are effective; and (4) the Plaintiff's
requested relief is too broad and too vague.

Judge Aiken concludes that E.O. sufficiently alleges that he
suffers an actual injury and that J.N., J.V., and B.M., who have
yet to receive the supports they need to succeed at full-day school
and whose previously non-compliant districts are not being
monitored, are at risk of imminent future harm from again suffering
unnecessarily shortened school days.  It appears that the stay-put
provision has not protected the Plaintiffs from being placed on
unnecessarily shortened school day schedules and instead has the
potential to lock students into unnecessarily shortened school day
schedules while parents and advocates seek recourse.

Regarding causation, the IDEA expressly provides that the State of
Oregon, in exchange for receiving federal funding, is responsible
for ensuring that all qualified children with disabilities receive
a FAPE.  The IDEA's monitoring, enforcement, and assistance
provisions contemplate that a State has control or should have
control over the districts.  Thus, although school districts
formulate and implement IEPs, the State has an affirmative
statutory duty to monitor, investigate, and enforce the IDEA
requirements and to assist the districts to ensure that they comply
with state and federal law.  The Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that their harm is fairly traceable
to the State's failure to fulfill its statutory duty to ensure that
the school districts provide the Plaintiffs a FAPE.

Turning to redressability, the Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and
injunctive relief.  They ask the Court to declare the State in
violation of state and federal law because it has failed to ensure
the Plaintiffs a FAPE.  The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enjoin
the State from subjecting them to policies and practices that
violate their rights under the statutes and to order the State to
develop, adopt, and implement policies and practices that will
ensure that the districts provide to all eligible children a FAPE
in the least restrictive environment.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs challenge a statewide failure
to effectively implement the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504, which
necessarily affects all Oregon children with disabilities.  The
ultimate scope of the remedy involves determinations that can only
be made after all parties have presented their evidence at trial.
In sum, the individual named Plaintiffs sufficiently allege all
three standing prongs: injury in fact, traceability, and
redressability.

Finally, because the named Plaintiffs allege that they are either
currently being denied a FAPE or at substantial risk of being
denied one and because parents of those Plaintiffs are among
COPAA's members, it is relatively clear that one or more COPAA
members has suffered or will suffer harm from the alleged failure
of the State to enforce the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504.  Thus,
COPAA sufficiently alleges standing.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Stern concluded that the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged standing.  Accordingly, the Judge
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4yre3z5 from
Leagle.com.


PEI WEI ASIAN: Class of GMs in Clarke Suit Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON CLARKE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEI WEI ASIAN DINER, LLC, dba PEI
WEI ASIAN KITCHEN, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-00800-N (N.D. Tex.),
Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas grants Clarke's motion to conditionally certify a
class and send notice to class members.

Plaintiff Clarke brought an action asserting claims against Pei Wei
to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Clarke is a general manager ("GM") of Pei
Wei, a fastcasual chain serving authentic, Asian-inspired dishes.
Clarke claims that GMs routinely work overtime hours without
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA.

Pei Wei does not object to conditional certification but raises
several objections to the notice procedure and content.  Pei Wei
argues that (1) notice should be limited to first-class mail; (2)
notice should be restricted to one occasion; (3) Pei Wei should be
required to disclose only names and addresses of class members; (4)
the notice should provide that individuals with arbitration
agreements are not eligible; and (5) the notice should explain the
potential Plaintiffs' responsibilities.

Clarke agreed to withdraw the reminder notice, edit the proposed
notice to provide that individuals with arbitration agreements are
not eligible, and explain the potential Plaintiffs'
responsibilities in the notice.  The parties dispute whether notice
should include email notice and whether Pei Wei should disclose
personal information beyond the names and addresses of the
potential class members.

Because Judge Godbey finds that there exist some identifiable facts
or legal nexus that binds the claims so that hearing the cases
together promotes judicial efficiency, and Pei Wei does not object
to conditional certification, Judge Godbey conditionally certifies
the following opt-in class:

    "All General Managers who work or have worked for Pei Wei at
     any time within three years prior to the action's filing
     date and who did not execute arbitration agreements."

Because Pei Wei has made no showing that email notice is unlikely
to facilitate notice, Judge Godbey will permit Clarke to send email
notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  Pei Wei is ordered to
provide Clarke with the names, addresses, and email addresses, if
known, for each individual falling within the conditionally
certified class.  Pei Wei will provide the Employee Information
within 14 days of the date of the Order.  Clarke will use the
Employee Information only to mail or email notice to the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Judge further orders the parties to confer about the content of
the notice letter and consent form, and to provide the Court with a
final proposed notice.  If they cannot agree on the content of the
notice letter and consent form, they must each submit their
proposed forms to the Court with a transmittal letter of no more
than three pages explaining the differences in the forms no later
than 14 days after the date of the Order.  

Subject to the Court's approval of the notice letter and consent
form, the Judge authorizes Clarke to email and to mail first class,
at Clarke's cost, a copy of the notice letter and consent form,
along with a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope, to each
potential class member.  Clarke will email or mail these materials
within 14 days after the Court's Order approving the notice letter
and consent form.  The Potential plaintiffs will have 90 days from
the Mailing Date to file a consent form opting-in to the
litigation, unless the parties agree to permit late filings.

Clarke's counsel will date stamp the returned consent forms on the
day the forms are received in the counsel's office and retain any
evidence showing the date the consent forms were postmarked,
fax-stamped, or received via email.  All consent forms postmarked,
faxstamped, or emailed on or before the last day of the Opt-In
Period will be considered timely.  The Court will not accept
consent forms postmarked, fax-stamped, or emailed after the Opt-In
Period expires.

Within 14 days after the last day of the Opt-In Period, Clarke's
counsel, on behalf of the opt-in Plaintiffs, will file the consent
forms with the Court, noting the received date for each individual.
The Judge tolls the statute of limitations for each opt-in class
member through the Filing Date.  The Court will accept late-filed
consent forms only for good cause.

The Judge also orders that the parties may conduct additional class
certification discovery for 90 days after the Filing Date.  Judge
Godbey further orders the Defendants to file a motion for
decertification within 30 days after the close of class
certification discovery, at which time the Court will apply the
more stringent review required under the second-step analysis in
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. litigation. 99 F.R.D. 89 (D.N.J. 1983).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ka7efg from
Leagle.com.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Sorin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SORIN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05729
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the New York Labor Law. the Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to pay him and
Class members on a weekly basis and no later than seven days after
the end of the workweek in which the wages were earned in violation
of the NYLL. Mr. Sorin further asserts that he was discriminated
against by Defendant on the basis of his religion as well as
retaliated for engaging in protected activity by reducing him from
full-time to part-time status.

Mr. Sorin was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, manual
worker who worked in field operations from in or about October 2018
until on or about November 11, 2020.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. provides recreational facilities and
services. The Company offers workout bikes for indoor cycling, as
well as other fitness related instruments. Peloton Interactive
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Katona Sues Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, et al. The case is captioned as Edward
Katona, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Laurel Harry, John Horner
and Keith Carberry, Case No. 3:20-cv-02221-JFS (M.D. Pa., Nov., 24,
2020).

The lawsuit is a prisoner complaint for violation of civil rights.

The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is the Pennsylvania
state agency that is responsible for the confinement, care and
rehabilitation of approximately 47,000 inmates at state
correctional facilities funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard C. Angino, Esq.
          ANGINO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1800 Linglestown Road, Suite 301
          HARRISBURG, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 238-6791
          Facsimile: (717) 238-5610
          E-mail: rca@anginolaw.com

PERFORMANCE CHORES: Ehrlich Sues Over Unpaid OT, Unreimbursed Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RANDALL EHRLICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE CHORES, LLC, ANGELA
HRBEK, ROBERT HRBEK and CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-03147-JMG-SMB (D. Neb., December 2, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
employee from August 2015 until October 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendants. Although they were
paid by the Defendant at one and one-half times their base hourly
rate for the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Defendant
failed to include the bonuses, that were paid to them, in their
regular rates when calculating their overtime pay. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees were
not paid accurate overtime compensation for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Moreover, the Defendant regularly required the Plaintiff to drive
from location to location while cleaning buildings. However, the
Defendant failed to reimburse him for gasoline or automobile
expenses.

Performance Chores, LLC own and operate a commercial cleaning
business based in Lincoln. The Individual Defendants are owners of
the Corporate Defendant who controlled their employees work
schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and
employment condition, and kept at least some records regarding
their employment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that it
continues to defend lawsuits related to a crude oil release in May
2015 from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Office of Spill
Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency
Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and
remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other
areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete,
and the Unified Command has been dissolved.

The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims.

The company had received a number of claims through the claims line
and the company had processed those claims and made payments as
appropriate.

In addition, the company has also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against it, six of which were administratively consolidated
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. The court originally certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.


On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
certification of one of the three sub-classes, the oil-industry
sub-class, and the District Court subsequently dismissed the
oil-industry sub-class representatives' claims.

The two remaining sub-classes include (i) commercial fishermen who
landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters off
the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and (ii)
residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential
properties with a private easement to a beach where oil from the
spill washed up.

The September 2020 trial date initially set by the Court has been
postponed due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions.

Plains All American said, "We are also defending a separate class
action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line
901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well
as compensatory damages."

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminaling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.

PORTLAND, OR: Summary Judgment Approval in Haber Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEF HABER, an individual; PATRICK GARRISON, an
individual; JENNIFER NICKOLAUS, an individual; CHRIS WHALEY, an
individual; JADE STRURMS, an individual; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF PORTLAND,
a municipal corporation; MAYOR TED WHEELER, in his individual
capacity; retired PORTLAND POLICE CAPTAIN LARRY GRAHAM, in his
individual capacity; PORTLAND POLICE OFFICE RYAN LEE, in his
individual capacity; PORTLAND POLICE OFFICER CHRIS LINDSEY, in his
individual capacity; PORTLAND POLICE OFFICER JEFFREY McDANIEL, in
his individual capacity, and PORTLAND POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH SANTOS,
in his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01827-JR
(D. Ore.), Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon recommended that (i) the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, (ii) the
Plaintiffs' partial cross-motion for summary judgment as to their
claim under the Oregon Constitution be denied, and (iii) the case
be dismissed.

The named Plaintiffs filed the class action against the Defendants
alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law arising
out of a group detention effectuated by the Portland Police Bureau
("PPB"), in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, on
June 4, 2017.

On May 14, 2017, Joey Gibson, the leader of Patriot Prayer, a
far-right group often associated with white supremacy, white
nationalism, and xenophobia, obtained a federal permit to hold a
rally in downtown Portland at Terry Schrunk Plaza.  The Patriot
Prayer rally was scheduled for June 4, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.  Three adjacent counter-protests were scheduled in response to
the Patriot Prayer rally--labor unions were anticipated in front of
the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt building, Portland Stands United
Against Hate was anticipated in front of City Hall, and Rose City
Antifa was anticipated in Chapman Square.

During the first few hours of the events on June 4, PPB's Emergency
Operations Center ("EOC") received numerous reports of people
attending or attempting to attend the protests with weapons.
During the afternoon, projectiles (such as bricks, ball bearings
shot from wrist rockets and rocks) were continuously being thrown
from Chapman towards Terry Schrunk Plaza.  At 3:34 p.m., the EOC
received information that persons in the crowd at Chapman were
forming a human shield in the middle of the park.
Graham resolved that the assembly had become unlawful, ordering
that the park be closed, and the crowd dispersed.  He directed
officers on the ground to detain the individuals who were marching
in the street in order to investigate the disorderly conduct
stemming from the purported violence in the parks and unpermitted
street march.

At 4:20 p.m., approximately 400 people were detained.  While
kettled, the Plaintiffs were not handcuffed and remained free to
walk within the area, speak with friends or legal observers, and
use their phones.  A number of those detained abandoned weapons and
clothing into the street and onto the sidewalk.  Twelve PPB
officers were involved in the simultaneous processing of the
detainees.  After approximately an hour, all the detainees had been
processed and left the area.

On November 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit. On May
31, 2018, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' class as follows: All
individuals who were assembled on Southwest Fourth Avenue between
Southwest Morrison Street and Southwest Alder Street in Portland,
Oregon on the afternoon of June 4, 2017, and who were contained and
prevented from leaving by officers of the Portland Police Bureau,
along with other law enforcement officers.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2018,
alleging: (1) deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights in violation
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Wheeler and the individual PPB
officers; (2) violation of the Oregon Constitution, Article I,
Section 9's prescription against unreasonable seizures against
Wheeler and individual PPB officers; (3) unconstitutional policy,
custom, or practice of depriving Fourth Amendment rights in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the City; and (4)
unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice of violating the
Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 9's prescription against
unreasonable seizures against the City.  They seek declaratory
relief as to all claims, in addition to compensatory or nominal
damages in regard to their first claim.

During the beginning of 2020, it appeared as though the parties had
at least preliminarily settled their dispute.  However, due to
breakdowns in the settlement process and the resurgence of protests
surrounding the death of George Floyd, the parties decided to
proceed in the case on the merits.

On Aug. 21, 2020, the parties filed the present summary judgment
motions.  Briefing on those motions was completed on Oct. 16,
2020.

The dispute centers on whether the Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional rights.  In regard to
the Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims, the Defendants argue
they are not justiciable.  They assert that, even if subject matter
jurisdiction exists, the Plaintiffs' claims fail because there is
no underlying unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice, and the
individual officers' conduct was reasonable or, alternatively, the
right at issue was not clearly established.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion on the basis that
myriad purported issues of material fact exist.  In addition, they
contend they are entitled to summary judgment on their claim under
state law because the Oregon Constitution requires individual
reasonable suspicion in order to effectuate a detention or arrest,
which was lacking in the case.

Magistrate Judge Russo finds that the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate
a disputed issue concerning whether there is a realistic likelihood
that they would experience an unlawful mass detention or kettle by
Graham or one of the other individual Defendants, who acted at the
direction of Graham.  In particular, because they have produced no
evidence to show the specific conduct challenged in the action
presently affects them or can reasonably be expected to affect them
in the future, she finds that intervening circumstances have
forestalled any occasion to address their injury via declaratory
relief.  The Defendants' motion should be granted as to the
Plaintiffs' second, third, and fourth claims, as well as to the
portions of their first claim that seek declaratory relief, and the
Plaintiffs' partial motion as to their second claim should be
denied.

In addition, Defendant Ryan Lee's broad statements, without more,
are insufficient to establish that a final policy-maker made a
deliberate choice to endorse Graham's decision and the basis for
it.  For this additional reason, the Defendants' motion should be
granted as to the Plaintiffs' claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 692-94 (1978).

Magistrate Judge Russo also states that it is undisputed that
Graham's detention decision was premised, at least in part, on the
legal advice he obtained from the City Attorney and Multnomah
County Deputy District Attorney, who were present for consultation
in the EOC and indicated that the detention could proceed lawfully
for "blocking traffic."  The Magistrate Judge cannot find that it
would have been clear to an officer confronting an analogous
situation in 2017 that his or her actions were "plainly incompetent
or [a knowing violation of] the law," citing Malley v. Briggs, 475
U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Therefore, the individual officers are
entitled to qualified immunity and the Defendants' motion should be
granted.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Russo recommended that
(i) the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted,
and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment should
be denied.  The parties' requests for oral argument should be
denied as unnecessary and judgment should be prepared dismissing
the case.

Any notice of appeal should not be filed until entry of the
district court's judgment or appealable order.  The parties will
have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the
Recommendation to file specific written objections with the Court.
Thereafter, they will have 14 days to file a response to the
objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2odgkxd from
Leagle.com.


PREFERRED HOME: Gonzalez De Fuente Appeals Judgment in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court Amended Judgment dated October 23, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Ynes M. Gonzalez De Fuente, Mariya Kobryn
and Ivan Kobryn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC,
Edison Home Health Care, Healthcap Assurance, Inc., Berry Weiss,
Samuel Weiss and Does 1-15, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-6749, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress for violations of the New York State Home Care Worker
Wage Parity Law, Public Health Law and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Gonzalez de Fuente, Mariya Kobryn and Ivan Kobryn are certified
home health aides employed by Edison Home Health Care. Gonzalez
worked between three and five ten-hour shifts, Mariya Kobryn works
three eleven-hour shifts while Ivan Kobryn works four twelve-hour
shifts for Edison, where all of their hours worked were within New
York City on Medicaid cases. Under the Wage Parity Law, the Benefit
Portion of the Minimum Rate, may be paid either in cash, or through
any combination of cash, health, education, pension benefits, wage
differentials, supplements in lieu of benefits or compensated time
off. However, at no time did the total compensation package
provided to Plaintiffs satisfied the Benefit Portion of the minimum
rate under the Wage Parity Law -- namely debit cards and Plan
benefit cards -- because their out of pocket expenses are too
expensive, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's
Memorandum, Decision, and Order, having been filed on October 9,
2020, granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the action and an
Order having been filed on October 15, 2020, directing the Clerk of
Court to amend the judgment to dismiss claims two, three, four and
five of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint and dismiss Plaintiffs
Mariya Kobryn and Ivan Kobryn from the action.

The appellate case is captioned as Gonzalez de Fuente v. Preferred
Home Care of New York LLC, Case No. 20-3985, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Nov. 25, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, Mariya Kobryn,
and Ivan Kobryn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Laureve Daniele Blackstone, Esq.
          LEVY RATNER, P.C.
          80 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 627-8100
          E-mail: lblackstone@levyratner.com

Defendants-Appellees Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, Edison
Home Health Care, Healthcap Assurance, Inc., Berry Weiss, Samuel
Weiss, HealthCap Exterprises, LLC, Mark Reisman, Gregg Salzman,
Shaya Manne, Daniel Ellenberg, Amir Abramchik, and Dov Feder are
represented by:

          H. Douglas Hinson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          950 F Street, NW
          The Atlantic Building
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 239-3432
          E-mail: doug.hinson@alston.com

               - and -

          Ira S. Lipsius, Esq.
          LIPSIUS-BENHAIM LAW LLP
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (212) 981-8440
          E-mail: ilipsius@lipsiuslaw.com   

               - and -

          Thomas A. Martin, Esq.
          PUTNEY TWOMBLY HALL & HIRSON LLP
          521 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 682-0020
          E-mail: tmartin@putneylaw.com

PRESSED JUICERY: Christian Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-10919 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent him at least 4
unwanted post-revocation text messages beginning on February 1,
2020 and continuing through the filing of this complaint. The
Plaintiff's contact information was registered to the Defendant's
electronic system when the Plaintiff enrolled in one of the
Defendant's rewards programs, in which she would be given a free
product and a future discount, on or about January 7, 2020 at the
Defendant's Los Angeles-based retail locations.

Subsequently, the Defendant has been sending additional text
messages to Plaintiff from approximately January 27, 2020 through
February 1, 2020. After receiving one of the Defendants' text
messages on February 1, 2020, the Plaintiff replied "STOP" and then
the Defendants sent a confirmatory text message from short code
473-367 to Plaintiff explaining she was "now unsubscribed".

Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's opt-out reply to expressly revoke
consent to receive the Defendants' text messages, the Defendants
sent at least three subsequent autodialed text messages to the
Plaintiff from the Defendants' same short code on November 2, 5 and
15, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff was personally affected, distracted and aggravated
because they were nuisance, invasive and intruded upon the
Plaintiff's seclusion upon receipt every time her cellular device
alerted her.

Pressed Juicery, Inc. offers cold-pressed juice brand with the goal
of making high-nutrition a realistic option for all people.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          Pamela Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kazlg.com

                - and –


          Michael R. Parker, Esq.
          Kevin Cole, Esq.
          PARKER COLE, P.C.
          6700 Fallbrook Ave., Suite 207
          West Hills, CA 91307
          Tel: (818) 292-8800
          Fax: (818) 292-8337
          E-mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com
                  kevin@parkercolelaw.com


PRET A MANGER: Quarles Suit removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kayla Quarles, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pret A. Manger (USA) Limited, Case
No. 2020-CH-06595, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Dec. 4, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-07179 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Pret A. Manger (USA) Ltd. -- https://www.pret.com/en-US -- retails
food products. The Company markets prepared food and beverages for
on premise or immediate consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Efrat R Schulman, Esq.
          Katherine Stallings Bailey, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 W. Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 782-3939
          Email: eschulman@jonesday.com
                 kbailey@jonesday.com


PRIME NOW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pope Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
AMBER POPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME NOW, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10912 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Pope was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Prime Now, LLC is engaged in the Internet & mail-order retail
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  jbaysinger@mayallaw.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company has taken an appeal from the conditional certification
order in the purported class action suit filed against
LogistiCare.

On April 1, 2019, a purported class action was filed against
LogistiCare Solutions, LLC (LogistiCare) in Texas alleging that the
Company's policy with respect to timekeeping for hourly employees
constituted violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as wage and hour laws in South Carolina and
Texas.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification on a
nationwide basis, which LogistiCare contested.

The court granted the conditional certification motion on January
22, 2020 and the company filed an appeal of the conditional
certification order.

Providence Service said, "If this case goes forward as either a
class action or individual claims, we plan to vigorously contest
the allegations on the merits as the plaintiffs have
mischaracterized the method by which employees clock in to work. At
this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to predict with any
certainty whether plaintiffs will prevail on their claims, or what
they might recover."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

PSCU INC: Loses Bid to Transfer Brown FLSA Suit to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONNIE BROWN, Plaintiff v. PSCU, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20-11510 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied both the Defendant's (i) Motion to Transfer Venue
to the Middle District of Florida, and (ii) Motion to Stay
Proceeding pending the outcome of its Motion to Transfer.

PSCU is a Florida Corporation with its headquarters in St.
Petersburg, Florida.  It provides several different services to
credit unions nationwide, including customer service support.  PSCU
operates callcenters at its headquarters, and in its offices in
Michigan and Arizona.  PSCU's human resources, payroll, and IT
staff, who are responsible for employee compensation policies, are
located at PSCU's headquarters in Florida.

Plaintiff Brown was previously employed as a call-center
representative in PSCU's office in Allen Park, Michigan.  On June
10, 2020, Brown filed a Complaint, on behalf of herself and "all
current and former non-exempt call-center employees," against PSCU.
She filed her Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and benefits she claims she is
owed from June 9, 2017, through the final resolution of the
lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that Brown's employer, PSCU, enforced a
companywide policy that improperly required its non-exempt
call-center employees to perform work off-the-clock, which they
were not compensated for.  Brown claims that such a policy was
illegal and that it negatively affected employees' regular pay rate
as it related to calculating weekly overtime wages.

On July 2, 2020, PSCU filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement.
In response, Brown filed an Amended Complaint on July 21, 2020.
Brown's Amended Complaint narrowed her issues and only brought
claims on behalf of herself, and those similarly situated employees
at PSCU's call-center in Allen Park, Michigan.  In addition to
violating the FLSA, Brown alleges PSCU's policies violated
analogous Michigan state laws.

On July 2, 2020, PSCU filed the instant Motion to Transfer the case
to the MDFL, to which Brown filed a Response.  On July 2, 2020,
PSCU also filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings.  Brown submitted her
Response on July 23, 2020.  On Oct. 1, 2020, the Court granted the
Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Documents in Support of the instant Motion.

PSCU indicates that the MDFL is an appropriate venue because the
action could have been brought there originally.  It notes that the
(i) MDFL is proper because PSCU is a resident of the MDFL and that
Court has personal jurisdiction over it; (ii) transfer is
appropriate because of the convenience of witnesses and the
attendant costs associated with litigating in the district; (iii)
the MDFL is a better venue because it can better handle the matter
expeditiously; and (iv) the transfer is appropriate because the
"locus of operative facts" occurred in the MDFL and Brown will not
be prejudiced because the choice of law will remain the same.

Overall, Brown argues that PSCU has been unable to meet its burden
of establishing that fairness and practicality strongly favor
transferring the case to the MDFL.

Judge Hood denied PSCU's request for change of venue.  She is
persuaded by Brown's arguments.  She finds that the public has an
interest in having local controversies adjudicated locally, and the
relative familiarity of the two courts with the applicable law does
not favor transfer.  Finally, returning to the consideration of
Brown's original choice of venue, none of the other factors weighs
heavily against venue in the district.

Motion to Stay

PSCU requests a stay of all proceedings in the instant FLSA matter
until the Court rules on the pending Motion to Transfer Venues.  It
argues that a stay would conserve judicial resources and that a
stay would not unduly prejudice Brown.  It also contends that
unnamed plaintiffs are not prejudiced by a stay because proceeding
in a collective action is not a "prerequisite" for interested
parties who wish to pursue FLSA claims.  Plaintiff Brown argues
that granting a stay would unnecessarily delay the case, which
would prejudice her and the putative class members before the
Court.

The Judge denied PSCU's Motion for a Stay.  Judge Hood finds that
PSCU indicates no specific hardship or inequity that would result
from proceeding with the case.  Although PSCU cites its pending
Motion to Transfer as a reason to stay, Judge Hood states that
PSCU's brief indicates no fatal obstruction to Brown or the
putative class members' claims, such as a lack of jurisdiction,
existence of superseding arbitration agreements, or a lack of
substantive legal claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3lsfrwq from Leagle.com.


PUBLIX SUPER: Seventh Circuit Revives 100% Claims in Bell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits styled ANN BELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees; and ANN
BELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ALBERTSON COMPANIES, INC.,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 19-2581, 19-2741 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an
Opinion ruling that:

   -- the partial final judgments dismissing the 100% claims
alleged in the consolidated Kraft Heinz, Albertsons, and
Walmart/ICCO-Cheese Co. complaints in Appeal No. 19-2741 are
reversed and remanded those for further proceedings consistent with
its Opinion; and

   -- the Appeal No. 19-2581, involving the consolidated complaints
against Publix and Target/ICCO, is dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.

The case is about Parmesan cheese -- specifically the kind sold in
familiar shaker tubes in grocery stores across the country. The
Defendants sell these products with labels advertising them as
"100% Grated Parmesan Cheese."  The Plaintiffs allege these
products are not 100% cheese, but rather contain between 4% and 9%
added cellulose powder and potassium sorbate, as is evident to a
consumer who takes the time to read the fine print of an ingredient
list on the back of the package. They claim that these ingredient
lists show that the prominent "100%" labeling is deceptive under
state consumer-protection laws.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred numerous
similar actions to the Northern District of Illinois for
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. The
Plaintiffs then reorganized their claims into five amended
consolidated complaints, organized by the Defendant.  In a series
of orders, the transferee district court ultimately dismissed the
Plaintiffs' deceptive labeling claims ("100% claims") with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs appeal
those dismissals.

The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' 100% claims on two
grounds. First, the court found that the prominent "100%" claims on
the front labels are ambiguous and that a consumer who seeks
clarity can find it by reading the ingredient list on the back
label. Second, it found that common sense would tell a reasonable
consumer that, despite the 100% claims, these cheese products must
contain added ingredients because they are sold unrefrigerated in
the main grocery aisles, alongside dried pastas and canned sauces.
On appeal, the Defendants offer a third defense, federal
preemption, which the district court did not reach.

The Appellate Court disagrees with all three grounds for dismissal.
It states that the Plaintiffs' 100% labeling claims survive the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  It agrees with the district court
that the context of the entire packaging is relevant.  It disagrees
about applying that principle in the case as a matter of law on the
pleadings.  What matters most is how real consumers understand and
react to the advertising. The Appellate Court therefore joins its
colleagues in at least three other circuits in holding that an
accurate fine-print list of ingredients does not foreclose as a
matter of law a claim that an ambiguous front label deceives
reasonable consumers. Many reasonable consumers do not
instinctively parse every front label or read every back label
before placing groceries in their carts.

The Defendants argue that the Appellate Court should affirm on an
alternative ground even if their 100% labels could be deemed
misleading under state law. They contend that such state law claims
are preempted because federal law permits their labeling. The
district court did not reach the issue, but it was briefed fully in
the district court and on appeal.  The Appellate Court finds it
prudent to resolve the issue of law now and perhaps head off
another round of appeals in the multidistrict litigation.

The Defendants' argument has two distinct branches. First, they
point out that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA")
and its accompanying regulations expressly bar states from imposing
labeling requirements that are not "identical" to the FDCA's, and
they contend the Plaintiffs seek to use state law to impose
different labels on them. Second, they say the FDA approved Kraft's
use of the "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" label in 1999 and 2000,
thus rendering the Plaintiffs' challenge both conflict-preempted
and barred by state-law safe harbor provisions.

These arguments do not persuade the Appellate Court. The first
reads the FDCA's express preemption provision too broadly. The
FDCA's preemption provision means that, while states may not
require sellers to add further labeling that is not required by
federal law, they may prevent sellers from voluntarily adding
deceptive content that is not required by federal law.  Hence, the
Plaintiffs' "100%" claims are thus not preempted by Section
343-1(a)(1).

The second argument fails at the first step because the Defendants
have not shown that the FDA approved Kraft's "100%" labeling as
nondeceptive. Kraft needed these permits to experiment with a
six-month curing period. And that was what the FDA approved. There
is no indication in these permits that the FDA assessed whether
Kraft's proposed "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" label was
nondeceptive under federal law, and certainly not that it approved
the 100% claim. The FDA only noted in passing that Kraft's products
will bear the name "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese." The FDA's
approval of Kraft's shorter six-month curing period therefore poses
no conflict with the Plaintiffs' state-law labeling claims.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit holds that the problem for the
Plaintiffs' appeals against Publix and Target/ICCO is that, despite
the absence of separate Rule 58 judgments accompanying the Nov. 1,
2018 order that said those Defendants were dismissed from the
litigation, more than 150 days had passed. In 2002, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)
were amended to try to solve the problems that can arise when a
district court never gets around to entering a separate Rule 58(a)
judgment. The solution was to deem a final judgment to have been
entered 150 days after the entry in the civil docket of the order
that apparently ended the case and is being appealed.

That description fits the Nov. 1, 2018 dismissal of all claims in
the Target/ICCO and Publix cases.  The 150 days from Nov. 1, 2018
ran on March 31, 2019, so the Appellate Court treats these
judgments as if they were entered on April 1, 2019, the first
business day after the 150th day.  The Plaintiffs then had 30 more
days, until May 1, to file notices of appeal from the Nov. 1, 2018
dismissals of Publix and Target/ICCO. The Plaintiffs missed that
deadline by more than three months.

Because the plaintiffs did not file their notices of appeal until
August 2019, their appeals against Publix and Target/ICCO are
untimely, and the Appellate Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over
the district court's dismissal of the claims in the consolidated
complaints against Publix and Target/ICCO.

Judge David Frank Hamilton, writing for the Seventh Circuit, rules
that in Appeal No. 19-2741, the partial final judgments dismissing
the 100% claims alleged in the consolidated Kraft, Albertsons, and
Walmart/ICCO complaints are reversed and those cases are remanded
for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.  The Appeal
No. 19-2581, involving the consolidated complaints against Publix
and Target/ICCO, is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 7, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ny9uab from Leagle.com.


QUALITY CARRIERS: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand of Salter to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAYTON SALTER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUALITY CARRIERS,
INC., an Illinois Corporation; QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Florida Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-55709 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's remand order.

Clayton Salter, a truck driver, filed the putative class action
against Quality, alleging that Quality failed to provide truck
drivers with meal breaks, rest periods, overtime wages, minimum
wages, and reimbursement for necessary expenditures as required by
California law.  The crux of Salter's claim is that Quality
misclassified the truck drivers as independent contractors rather
than employees.

The complaint asserted claims under California law for: (1) failure
to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required
rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay
minimum wages; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain required records; (7)
failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (8) failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties; (9) unlawful deductions from wages; and (10)
unfair and unlawful business practices. Quality was served on Oct.
18, 2019.

In January 2020, Quality removed the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California asserting that the
amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  Salter filed a motion
to remand to state court.  The district court granted the motion
finding that the declaration submitted by Quality failed to
adequately show that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million.

The appeal focuses on what a defendant must show for removal of a
class action under CAFA when the amount in controversy is not clear
from the complaint.  According to Salter, Quality failed to meet
the standard by offering only a short declaration by one of its
employees and not providing a single business record to support
that declaration.  He contends that the district court properly
rejected the declaration because evidence submitted at summary
judgment must satisfy the "best evidence rule," which requires that
a party provide "the original of a writing, recording, or
photograph" to "prove the contents thereof."  Salter argues that
because the best evidence rule applies whenever the contents of a
document are sought to be proved, a declarant may not simply
testify to the contents of a document, he must actually produce the
document for it to be considered.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred by applying
the standard for reviewing a factual attack on jurisdiction to
Salter's facial attack on Quality's presentation.  Salter did not
challenge the rationality, or the factual basis, of Quality's
assertions.  Instead, he argued only that Quality must support its
assertion with competent proof.  But such a challenge is foreclosed
by the Supreme Court's decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Sys. Co., LLC v. Owens, and the Court's opinion in Arias v.
Residence Inn by Marriott.

In Dart, the Supreme Court indicated that a defendant may simply
allege or assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met,
and in Arias the Court held that a removing defendant's notice of
removal need not contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible
allegations of jurisdictional elements.

The Ninth Circuit therefore holds that the district court erred in
treating Salter's attack on Quality's presentation as a factual,
rather than facial, challenge.  The district court faulted
Quality's presentation as relying on the unsupported and conclusory
statements in Dixon's declaration.  But that is the inherent nature
of plausible allegations: they rely on "reasonable assumptions."
Salter, however, has not challenged any of Quality's essential
assumptions or shown that any one was unreasonable.  Accordingly,
because Quality only needed to include a plausible allegation that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, the
district court's remand order is vacated and the matter is remanded
to the district court.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 8, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5bj5jsh from Leagle.com.


ROBERT SINK LAW: Downey Suit Alleges Violation of the RICO Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP A. DOWNEY; and THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE LAW
OFFICES OF ROBERT SINK; THE GIBSON LAW FIRM; ROBERT SINK, ESQ.; and
ROBERT T. GIBSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06067-KSM (E.D. Pa.,
Dec. 2, 2020) alleges violation of the violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

According to the complaint, in violation of the RICO, attorneys
Robert W. Sink and Robert T. Gibson, for over a period of over 6
years between May, 2014 and the present have engaged in an open
ended RICO conspiracy, through a multiplicity of separate and
discrete actions, to defraud their joint law clients, Plaintiffs
Philip A. Downey, and The Downey Law Firm, LLC, out of over one
million dollars, known damages, and growing.

The pattern of racketeering involved more than 7 predicate acts
since May, 2014, all constituting wire fraud as defined by 18
U.S.C. Section 1343 and directly causing financial harm to the
Plaintiffs and also the Plaintiff Downey's family, including the
loss of more than one million in revenues shared by the Plaintiffs,
and an unknown sum of monies hidden from Downey by use of fraud,
deceit and omission.

The Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering by: (a) grossly
and/or purposefully using fraud, deceit, omissions, and abusing
their confidential relationship to lead their mutual law clients
into trusting their promises that if they included them on
California class actions and shared monies generated there from on
an equal three way basis that they would bring him in on their
cases and do the same and; (b) in violation of the RICO Act using
extortion to keep the monies from the Plaintiffs' California Class
Actions flowing to them indefinitely; (c) using fraud and
deliberate omissions to hide facts, cases and monies owed to the
Plaintiffs; and (d) procuring wire payments in excess of $1,000,000
from Downey.

The Defendants in their pattern of racketeering activity regularly
used interstate e-mail, telephone and facsimile transmission lines,
cellular phones and internet transmission, while engaging in
interstate commerce for the purposes of committing fraud or deceit,
and conspiring to commit fraud or deceit, and divesting Downey of
over $1,000,000.

The Law Offices Of Robert Sink is a law firm. The Firm's practice
areas include commercial litigation, matrimonial practice, and
mediation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          The Downey Law Firm, LLC
          105 Guinea Hollow Road
          Califon, NJ 07830
          Telephone: (610) 616-4740


ROCKWELL AUTOMATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Berube Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BERUBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.; THE ROCKWELL
AUTOMATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE; and JOHN/JANE DOES
1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01783 (E.D. Wis., Dec. 2,
2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to pay benefits under the Rockwell Automation Pension Plan in
amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity to
participants and beneficiaries receiving a joint and survivor
annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The Plan attempts to conform to ERISA's actuarial equivalence
requirements by using formulas to calculate the amount of various
alternative benefit forms that are based on actuarial assumptions
set out in the Plan document. For some of the subplans, these
actuarial assumptions are specified; in others they are not. In
either event, however, the selected mortality table and interest
rate are used to calculate "conversion factors." The conversion
factor is then applied to the normal form of benefit to determine
the monthly amount a Participant will receive if he or she selects,
for example, a JSA. However, the Plan's conversion factors are not
based on reasonable actuarial assumptions, because the assumptions
used by the Plan have not been updated in decades and are no longer
accurate. The monthly benefit amounts received by Plaintiff and
other class members are less than the actuarial equivalent of the
SLA they could have selected when compared to benefits calculated
using reasonable actuarial assumptions.

By using flawed mortality assumptions , the Defendants caused
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Class members to receive
less than they should each month, reducing the present values of
their retirement benefits by thousands of dollars.

Rockwell Automation, Inc. produces industrial automation products.
The Company offers products such as control systems, motor control
devices, sensors, and industrial control panels. Rockwell
Automation markets its products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 North Oakland Avenue
          Whitefish Bay, WI
          Telephone: (414) 210-3868
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@crugerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                  ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com


ROXBURY SURGERY: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZULEMA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. ROXBURY SURGERY CENTER,
LLC; SCRC MEDICAL GROUP, P.C.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV46531 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
December 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 by failing
to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to
properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing
to provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due
and owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and
failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in California since 2017.

Roxbury Surgery Center, LLC is a surgical center located in Beverly
Hills, California.

SCRC Medical Group, P.C. is a women's health care provider that
specializes in obstetrics & gynecology, with its principal place of
business located in Beverly Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas Han, Esq.
         Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
         Chancellor D. Nobles, Esq.
         JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
         751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
         Pasadena, CA 91103
         Telephone: (818) 230-7502
         Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

RUBY TUESDAY: Court Dismisses Delacruz ADA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-10319 (KMW) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kimba M.
Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff Delacruz, who is legally blind, commenced the putative
class action against the Defendant, alleging that it violated Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York
State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), for failing to provide braille gift cards.

The Plaintiff, a New York resident, is a visually impaired and
legally blind person who requires braille to read written material.
The Defendant operates restaurants throughout New York and is one
of the largest restaurant chains in the world.  It sells, among
other things, gift cards that customers can use to purchase goods
and services from its stores.

On Oct. 21, 2019, the Plaintiff called the Defendant's customer
service office and asked whether it sold store gift cards
containing Braille.   He was informed that the Defendant did not
sell such gift cards; he was not offered alternative auxiliary aids
or services with respect to the gift cards.  He was also unable
purchase an accessible gift card from the Defendant.  The Plaintiff
has been a customer at the Defendant's restaurants and intends to
immediately purchase gift cards from it as soon as gift cards that
are accessible to blind persons are available.

The Plaintiff sued the Defendant under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL
seeking compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief.  He filed the action on Nov. 6, 2019
and subsequently filed the FAC on Feb. 21, 2020.  

The Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC for lack of jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  It argues that the Plaintiff lacks
standing and has failed to state a claim to relief.

Judge Wood finds that the FAC adequately pleads standing.  First,
the Plaintiff satisfies the past injury requirement by alleging
that he was unable to purchase a braille gift card and was not
offered alternative auxiliary aids or services.  Second, it is
reasonable to infer that the discriminatory treatment will continue
because, as the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant intends to
continue selling store gift cards that are not accessible to blind
and vision-impaired consumers.  Third, it is also reasonable to
infer that the Plaintiff intends to return to the Defendant's
restaurant because he alleges that he has been a customer at the
Defendant's restaurant, resides in close proximity to its
restaurants, and will purchase a store gift card once they are
accessible to individuals who are blind.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion is denied.

The Plaintiff's overarching argument is that the ADA requires
commercial stores to provide legally blind customers with braille
gift cards or gift cards that are otherwise accessible to blind
persons.  He makes three arguments with respect to the ADA: (1) a
gift card itself is a public accommodation; (2) a gift card is not
a good sold by a public accommodation; and (3) the Defendant's
failure to offer braille or otherwise accessible gift cards is a
failure to offer an appropriate auxiliary aid or service.

Judge Woods holds that each of these arguments fails as a matter of
law.  First, gift cards are not a place of public accommodation
because they may be used to purchase goods from a retailer, but
they are not spaces where those purchases can be made.  Second,
gift cards simply do not have the same "constitutional
underpinnings" and universalism as cash.  Therefore, the Defendant
is not obligated to modify its gift cards to include braille
because its gift cards are not a financial service -- they are
goods.  Third, the Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant failed
to provide him with sufficient auxiliary aids is unsupported.  The
Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to show that the Defendant
failed to offer any auxiliary aids or services.  For all these
reasons, the Plaintiff's ADA claims fail as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the
Court rules.

Having dismissed the Plaintiff's ADA claims, the Judge finds it
appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the Plaintiff's state law claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.  

The Plaintiff may seek leave to amend the FAC by filing a letter
motion explaining how a second amended complaint would state a
claim that is consistent with the Opinion and Order.  The letter
motion must identify additional facts pinpointing how the Defendant
failed to furnish auxiliary aids or services that ensure that the
information on its gift cards is effectively communicated to blind
persons.  The Judge directs the Plaintiff to append to the letter a
draft of the proposed second amended complaint showing the changes
from the FAC.  The letter motion must be filed on Sept. 18, 2020.


The Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss
contains a request for oral argument.  The Judge does not find oral
argument necessary, in light of the clarity of the briefing, and
thus denied the request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3vhrfhq from Leagle.com.

As of presstime, no activity has been noted in the case's court
docket as of Sept. 9, 2020.


RYDER LAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cabral Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CABRAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RYDER LAST MILE, INC.; and FLORIDA BRYAN
DELIVERY CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-62454-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 2, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cabral was employed by the Defendants as delivery
helper.

Ryder Last Mile, Inc. a business that operates as a provider of
transportation and supply chain management products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

               -and-

          Andres F. Fernandez, Esq.
          DEL CRISTO FERNANDEZ & MONJE, P.A.
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, PH 2-A
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 329-2990
          E-mail: fernandez@dfmlawyers.com
                  pleadings@dfmlawyers.com


S-L SNACKS: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of McGee Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELYN McGEE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. S-L SNACKS NATIONAL, in
place of DIAMOND FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-55577
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order dismissing the action for lack
of constitutional standing.

Plaintiff-Appellant McGee purchased and consumed Pop Secret brand
popcorn manufactured by Diamond.  She contends that Diamond engaged
in unfair practices, created a nuisance, and breached the warranty
of merchantability by including partially hydrogenated oils
("PHOs") as an ingredient in Pop Secret.  She further alleges that
PHOs, the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans
fatty acids (also known as artificial trans fat), are an unsafe
food additive that causes heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and
other ailments.

Ms. McGee filed the putative class action against Diamond in 2014.
The complaint alleges four causes of action: violation of the
unlawful prong of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL");
violation of the unfair prong of the UCL; nuisance; and breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.  The complaint seeks
restitution, disgorgement, damages, injunctive relief, and other
remedies.

The district court granted Diamond's motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of Article III standing.  The district court was
unpersuaded by McGee's contention that she suffered an economic
injury when she purchased a product that was less healthy than
expected.  Consequently, McGee's purchases were not made on the
basis of false or misleading representations.  It also rejected
McGee's claims of present and future physical injury.

The district court concluded that McGee's risk of developing
diseases from her consumption of Diamond's Trans Fat Popcorn is
speculative, because there are no facts or reasonable inferences to
be drawn from the allegations in her complaint, or in the studies
cited therein, showing how the trans fat popcorn substantially
increased her risk of harm, much less the probability of that harm
being substantial when she alleges her purchases occurred once
every two or three months over three years.

Having determined that McGee failed sufficiently to allege injury
in fact, and having previously afforded McGee an opportunity to
amend the complaint to cure the deficiency, the district court
dismissed the action with prejudice.

Plaintiff McGee timely appealed.

Ms. McGee contends that she has alleged adequately an economic
injury because when purchasing Pop Secret, she was seeking products
of particular qualities.  In other words, Ms. McGee did not receive
the benefit she thought she was obtaining--a safe and lawful
product--but rather received a dangerous and unlawful one.  Thus,
she alleges benefit of the bargain injury.

The Ninth Circuit finds that McGee does not contend that Diamond
made any representations about Pop Secret's safety.  Although she
may have assumed that Pop Secret contained only safe and healthy
ingredients, her assumptions were not included in the bargain,
particularly given the labeling disclosure that the product
contained artificial trans fat.  Thus, even if those expectations
were not met, she has not alleged that she was denied the benefit
of her bargain. Absent some allegation that Diamond made false
representations about Pop Secret's safety, McGee's benefit of the
bargain theory falls short.

Ms. McGee alternatively appears to contend that she suffered an
economic injury because she paid more for Pop Secret than it was
worth. She alleges that she suffered loss in an amount equal to the
amount she paid for Pop Secret because Pop Secret is not fit for
human consumption and has a value of $0.

The Court concludes that McGee has not sufficiently alleged
economic injury on either a benefit of the bargain theory or an
overpayment theory.  Given that the health risks of consuming Pop
Secret were established by 2008, it is not persuaded that the Pop
Secret McGee purchased was worth objectively less than what one
could reasonably expect.

Ms. McGee also alternatively contends that she has sufficiently
alleged an injury in fact because she suffered a number of current
physical injuries due to her consumption of Pop Secret.  She
alleges that Pop Secret inflamed and damaged her vital organs,
permanently degraded her cognitive abilities, and substantially
aggravated her age-related cholesterol and insulin dysregulation.
She further alleges that there is 'no safe level' of PHO or
artificial trans fat intake and that consuming artificial trans fat
in any quantity" causes physical injury.

The Court holds that Ms. McGee has not plausibly alleged that her
consumption of Pop Secret caused her immediate physical injury.
Given the studies upon which McGee relies, these allegations are
simply too speculative to support standing, even at the pleading
stage.  McGee has not plausibly alleged that her consumption of Pop
Secret either resulted in the physical injuries she asserts or
diminished her quality of life.

Ms. McGee also alternatively contends that she has adequately
alleged an injury in fact because her consumption of Pop Secret has
substantially increased her risk of disease.  McGee, however, has
not sufficiently alleged injury in fact based on her risk of future
physical injury.  Although the complaint alleges that there are
serious health risks associated with the consumption of artificial
trans fat, even in small quantities, the Court is not persuaded
that McGee has plausibly alleged that her limited consumption of
Pop Secret placed her at substantial risk of disease.

For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed the action
for lack of Article III standing.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y69r5rex from Leagle.com.

Gregory S. Weston (argued) -- greg@westonfirm.com -- The Weston
Firm, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew C. Nichols (argued) and Stephanie A. Maloney, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C.; Amanda L. Groves --
agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina; for Defendant-Appellee.


SALVATION ARMY: Parker FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASEDRIA PARKER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. THE SALVATION ARMY; SALVATION ARMY OF
THE UNITED STATES; THE SALVATION ARMY EL SOBRANTE RESIDENCES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CIV-04787, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on December 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08585 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide proper
disclosure and failing to give proper summary of rights.

The Salvation Army is a Christian church and an international
charitable organization located in California.

Salvation Army of the United States is a Christian church and an
international charitable organization located in New York.

The Salvation Army El Sobrante Residences, Inc. is a Christian
church and an international charitable organization located in El
Sobrante, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
         Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-1940
         Facsimile: (415) 399-8490

SCOTT & WHITE: Must Defend Suit over Unnamed Plans
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C. & L.C., individually
and as next friends to L.L.C., ET AL. v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE
HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:18-cv-00828-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Sean D. Jordan entered an order denying S&W's Motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims relating to the Unnamed Plans.

The Court said, "Because Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that an
ascertainable class, as well as allegations meeting the
requirements of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a), S&W's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class claims under Rule 12(b)(6) fails.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of both the BSW Plan and the Unnamed Plans who
allegedly have been denied coverage by S&W for ASD therapy.

S&W moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a
claim for which relief can be granted. S&W argues that all claims
against it should be dismissed because S&W lacks "actual control"
over the BSW Plan and the Unnamed Plans. S&W also argues that the
Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' claims relating to the Unnamed
Plans because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead a lack of parity
between mental health benefits and medical and surgical benefits
for the Unnamed Plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39OWQuC at no extra charge.[CC]

SENIOR CARE: Moss Seeks to Certify NCWHA & Title VII Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA MOSS on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SENIOR CARE
CAROLINAS, PLLC, INNOVATIVE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC and MELISSA
LYNCH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00137-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C., Filed Mar. 4,
2020), the Plaintif asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting her Motion for Class Certification of a North
      Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) Class and a Title VII
      Class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing her as class representative for both Classes;
      and

   3. appointing L. Michelle Gessner at GessnerLaw, PLLC as
      class counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and others similarly situated were
subjected to unlawful pay practices of their joint employers,
Senior Care Carolinas, PLLC, Innovative Healthcare Management, LLC
and Melissa Lynch in violation of the NCWHA. The Plaintiff further
alleges that the Defendants subjected African American employees to
race discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ms. Moss and the Title VII Class Members are employees of
Defendants who are African American and suffered discrimination,
harassment and retaliation on the basis of race in violation of
Title VII, the complaint says.

Senior Care Carolinas operates assisted living residental homes.
Innovative Healthcare is a health compliance and operational
educational company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37TBYzO at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, are:

         L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
         GESSNER LAW, PLLC
         602 East Morehead Street
         G. G. Galloway House
         Charlotte, NC 28202
         Telephone: (704) 234-7442
         Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
         E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Nguyen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IMON NGUYEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIMPSON STRONG-TIE
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07901-TSH (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action alleging that
certain structural support products manufactured by the Defendants
and used in the construction of their homes suffer from an inherent
defect that the Defendants have been fraudulently concealing from
consumers.  The Plaintiffs are various California and Arizona
homeowners.  

Defendant Simpson Strong-Tie is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Pleasanton, California.  Defendant
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. s a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Pleasanton, California.  Simpson
develops, manufactures, advertises, sells, and distributes its
standard G90 galvanized metal hurricane straps for embedment at
concrete foundation edges in buildings throughout the United
States.  It designs and sells a variety of metal connectors for
construction use with installation in a variety of locations such
as home roof framing, wall framing, and concrete foundation
anchors.  The Simpson products installed in the Plaintiffs' homes
and at issue in the case are Simpson's HD Strap-tie Holdowns and
MAS Mudsill Anchors.

Simpson from 2005 to 2018 marketed that its G90 galvanization was
sufficient to protect the Products from corrosion in the exposure
that occurs in the Dry Service environment.  Since at least 2006,
it has consistently specified and recommended its "standard" "Low"
G90 galvanization for Products installed in Dry Service
environments, in building framing behind house wrap and cladding.
Through 2018, Simpson's Dry Service definition included no
information or warnings about the risk that that environment could
contain salt, moisture, and oxygen after construction.

As a result of Simpson's misconduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered
actual damages in that their Products all have the same specific
undisclosed defects and have prematurely failed, will prematurely
fail, and/or are reasonably certain to prematurely fail.  They
assert as causes of action: a violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; a violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); a violation of the UCL, Unfair Business
Practice; a violation of the UCL, Fraudulent Business Practice; and
a violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; breach of express
warranty; negligent misrepresentation; and fraud.

Simpson moves for dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  It has made two separate requests for judicial
notice ("RFJN").  In its RFJN in Support of its Motion to Dismiss,
Simpson requests judicial notice of six documents, attached as
Exhibits A through F to the Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch: Exhibit
A, an International Code Council Evaluation Service, Inc.
("ICC-ES") Evaluation Report, ESR-2555, reissued November 2019 and
revised January 2020; Exhibit B, an ICC-ES Evaluation Report,
ESR-2920, reissued February 2020 and revised May 2020; Exhibit C,
the first six pages of Simpson's 2006 Wood Construction Connectors
Catalog; and Exhibits D, E, and F, three orders issued by a judge
in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, in
actions before that court.

The Plaintiffs filed an objection to the RFJN.  They do not object
to notice of Exhibits A, B, or C.  They object to notice of
Exhibits D, E, and F, the three court orders in cases in state
court in Hawaii.  They object on the ground that taking judicial
notice of findings of fact from another case exceeds the limits of
Rule 201.

Magistrate Judge Hixson takes judicial notice of the Hawaii court
orders without taking notice of any findings of fact or law
expressed in those orders.  However, he notes that the Plaintiffs
themselves attempt to rely on the findings expressed in those
orders, and they do so without requesting judicial notice of the
orders.  Accordingly, he also strikes allegations in the SAC
related to the Hawaii case other than the Plaintiffs' allegations
of the existence and general thrust of the lawsuit.  Simpson's
first RFJN is granted.  Simpson's other RFJN requests judicial
notice of a complaint filed in a matter in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  That request is unopposed.
It is also granted.

Turning to the Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate Judge granted
Simpson's Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' first, fourth,
fifth, seventh, and eighth claims.  These claims are dismissed with
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs' second cause of action is dismissed to
the extent it is predicated on any of those claims.

Among other things, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
do not allege that they or any other homeowners ever received
Simpson's Catalogs or that they were ever intended to.  Quite to
the contrary, they allege that Simpson's Catalogs are not intended
for homeowners and that Simpson does not directly distribute or
intend for homeowners like the Plaintiffs to receive, understand,
or consider its 'Corrosion Warnings' in its Catalogs or any other
materials it publishes.  Thus, the Plaintiffs do not plausibly
allege that Simpson intended or expected that its representations
to construction professionals would ever end up with them.  They do
not plead facts showing they are entitled to relief under a theory
of fraud by misrepresentation.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot
show reliance and cannot proceed with their claims sounding in
fraud.  Hence, the dismissal of their first, fourth, fifth and
eighth causes of action.  

Additionally, the Plaintiffs' negligent representation claim, their
seventh cause of action, fails.  That claim, like the other fraud
claims, is predicated on the Plaintiffs' allegations that Simpson
made factual representations and material omissions about the
Products, intending that the Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and/or
the construction professionals rely on those representations and
omissions about the Products.  The Plaintiffs assert that negligent
misrepresentation is not the same as the negligent design/failure
to warn claim that they alleged in the FAC.  Rather, negligent
misrepresentation is a variant of fraud.  Thus, the Plaintiffs'
seventh cause of action is also dismissed.  

The Plaintiffs' second claim, the UCL unlawful business practice
claim, is dismissed to the extent it is founded on any of these
claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6g8dsxy from Leagle.com.

                          Case Referred to Mediation

The case has been referred to mediation in October 2020.  The Court
appointed Michael E. Dickstein as mediator.

In a December 2, 2020 Order available at https://bit.ly/3ndT69F
from PacerMonitor.com, Magistrate Judge Hixson approved a
stipulation by the Plaintiffs and Defendants for an extension of
the deadline  for the conduct of the Court-sponsored mediation
through June 30, 2021.

The parties expressed that it will take a few months to complete
the majority of discovery, including the inspections of the
Plaintiffs' home.  The parties agree that a mediation held before
class certification briefing, but only after the majority of
discovery is complete (in particular, the inspections of the
Plaintiffs’
homes), will present the best opportunity to resolve the case.


SKECHERS USA: Dismissal of Steamfitters Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's
order dismissing the case Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v.
Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg, without
leave to amend.

On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of its Domestic
Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts for
alleged violations of federal securities laws.

On November 21, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and, on September 23, 2019, the court granted its motion
without leave to amend.

On October 22, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and, on October 20, 2020,
that court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing the case
without leave to amend.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.

SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in the
case, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a
settlement in principle.

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business
practices.

The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law.

On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the
court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the
collective.

The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire-West privacy
opt out notice until after mediation. The parties have agreed to an
informal stay of discovery and have stipulated to continue all
relevant discovery and motion deadlines accordingly.

The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of a
January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still
need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented.

Skechers said, "In the event the settlement is not concluded
successfully, it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

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

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.

SMCS SERVICES: Underpays LPNs & Aides, Clevenger et al. Suit Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON THOMPSON CLEVENGER and MICHELLE JURENEC, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
SMCS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a STAR MULTI CARE CO., and AMSERV
HEALTHCARE OF OHIO, INC. d/b/a CENTRAL STAR HOME HEALTH SERVICES
and d/b/a EXTENDED FAMILY CARE OF OHIO, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02677 (N.D. Ohio, December 1, 2020) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio
Overtime Law, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (OPPA).

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked for
the Defendants as Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and aides.
Clevenger started working with the Defendants since approximately
November 2016, while Jurenec was since approximately November
2016.

The Plaintiffs asserts that although they and other similarly
situated employees were required by the Defendants to arrive to
work 10 to 15 minutes early and/or stay late 10 to 15 minutes early
to perform shift-change, the Defendant failed to compensate them
for those pre-shift and post-shift duties which are necessary,
indispensable, integral, and intrinsic to their jobs. As a result,
the Defendants failed to pay them all overtime compensation at a
rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for
hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records
of all the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees.

The Corporate Defendants individually and jointly operate as an
enterprise providing various home health care services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 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


SOLUTIONZ VIDEOCONFERENCING: Faces Pujols Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTINO PUJOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated former and current employees, Plaintiff v. SOLUTIONZ
VIDEOCONFERENCING, INC. a/k/a SOLUTIONZ, INC. and as successor to
and REAL TIME SERVICES, INC., and LAURA WIDMAIER, CEO, BILL
WARNICK, CEO and KIRK R. FERNANDEZ, CEO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10373 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid overtime
wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
provide notice at the time of hiring.

The Plaintiff was employed as an assistant project manager by
Solutionz, Inc. from on or about 2018 until his termination on or
about August 10, 2020.

From on or about January 2016, he was employed by the Defendant as
a manual laborer or field technician.

Solutionz Videoconferencing, Inc., also doing business as
Solutionz, Inc., is a company that offers audio visual solutions,
with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles,
California. [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

SONENDO INC: Engineers Class Conditionally Certified
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARRY MICHAEL FITE ET AL
V. SONENDO, INC. Case No. 8:20-cv-00833-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order:

   1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion and conditionally
      certifying a class of:

      "Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Group" or all current
      and former Field Service Engineers employed by the
      Defendant who were classified by Defendant Sonedo, Inc. as
      'exempt' under the FLSA;" and

   2. directing the Plaintiffs to amend their proposed Notice in
      accordance with the Order.

The Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other Field Service Engineers a
salary and classified them as exempt under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs
allege they regularly worked in excess of eight hours per day and
40 hours per week without overtime compensation from the Defendant,
the complaint says.

The Plaintiffs Garry Michael Fite and Jeffrey Aiden Grey were
employed by Sonedo as "Field Service Engineers".  As Field Service
Engineers, the Plaintiffs provided on-site maintenance and repair
services for the Defendant's customers across the United States.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and services a dental device
used for root canals, known as the GentleWave System.

A copy of the civil minutes dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oBiCpP at no extra charge.[CC]

SPARTAN ENTERPRISES: Guevara Wins Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JHONY GUEVARA, et al., v.
SPARTAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01383-JEB
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification
with Notice provisions, on behalf of:

   "anyone who was "employed by Spartan and/or Bozzuto, to
   perform electrician and related work duties on units at [the
   Harlow Apartments] within the last three years"; worked more
   than 40 hours in any workweek during that time; and was not
   paid by Spartan at the properly weighted rate for overtime
   pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
   District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act (DCMWA)."

Judge Boasberg said, because the Court does not weigh conflicting
facts at this time and because it finds that the Plaintiffs have
made the required "modest factual showing" that the putative class
members are similarly situated, it will grant their Motion,
conditionally certify the proposed class, and provide parameters
for identifying and giving notice to class members.

According to the Complaint, Jhony Guevara and Alexis Loza worked as
electricians for Spartan Enterprises from 2017 to 2019 and from
2018 to 2019, respectively. During "a significant portion of" that
time, they worked at the construction site of the Harlow Apartments
in Southeast Washington. Bozzuto Construction Company was building
those Apartments pursuant to a contract with the city government --
just over 20% of the new units are public housing -- and
subcontracted the electrical work to Spartan.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and opinion dated Nov. 23, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36XAk0y at no
extra charge.[CC]

SPECIALTYCARE USA: Viteri FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE EMILIO VITERI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTYCARE USA, INC. f/k/a
SPECIALTYCARE, INC., Case No. 2020-CA-021514, was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on December 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-24970 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked.

SpecialtyCare USA, Inc., formerly known as SpecialtyCare, Inc., is
a provider of health care clinical services based in Nashville,
Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Kevin W. Shaughnessy, Esq.
         Meagan L. Martin, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         200 South Orange Avenue, Ste. 2300
         Post Office Box 112
         Orlando, FL 32801-3432
         Telephone: (407) 649-4000
         Facsimile: (407) 841-0168
         E-mail: kshaughnessy@bakerlaw.com
                 mmartin@bakerlaw.com

ST MARY PARISH: Court Recertifies Class in Boudreaux Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, ET AL., v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST MARY
PARISH, ET AL, Case No. 6:65-CV-11351 (W.D. La.), Judge Robert R.
Summerhays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division, granted the Motion for Class
Recertification.

On Aug. 31, 1965, five African-American students attending public
schools in St. Mary Parish filed suit for injunctive relief against
the St. Mary Parish School Board and B. Edward Boudreaux,
Superintendent of the public schools of St. Mary Parish, alleging
that the Defendants were maintaining racially segregated schools in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The suit was brought as a class action and defined the class as
follows:  The Plaintiffs bring the action as a class suit on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other Black children and their
parents in St. Mary Parish, similarly situated, all of whom are
affected by the policy, practice, custom and usage [of Defendants'
maintenance and operation of a compulsory, biracial school system.

Infant and adult Plaintiffs are Black citizens of the United States
and of the State of Louisiana presently residing in St. Mary
Parish, Louisiana.  The minor Plaintiffs allege that they, and each
of them, are either currently attending the public free schools of
St. Mary Parish or are in all material respects eligible to
register, enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruction in
the public free schools of St. Mary Parish.

The Board then stipulated that the Plaintiffs were under the law
entitled to bring the suit as a class action, and the Court
subsequently issued several decrees granting class-wide relief.  At
the time suit was filed, a prior version of Rule 23 (the 1938 rule)
was in effect, which did not require courts to issue an order
certifying an action as a class action.

The following year, Rule 23 was amended to include a mandatory
requirement of class certification.  The Order of the Supreme Court
issued in conjunction with the 1966 amendments to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure stated that the amendments will govern in
actions then pending, except to the extent that in the opinion of
the court their application in a particular action then pending
would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the
former procedure applies.

Pursuant to its Board's Motion to Dismiss, the Board contended, in
part, that the Court no longer retained jurisdiction over the suit
because it was never formally certified as a class action pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Neither the Court nor the parties have located in the record a
formal order certifying the class, or an express determination that
the application of amended Rule 23 would not be feasible or would
work injustice.  Accordingly, on Sept. 18, 2019, although the Court
rejected the Board's argument, it nonetheless found the class in
the matter should be formally recertified and its parameters should
be clarified.  The Court issued a Ruling in the longstanding school
desegregation suit denying a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Board.


The Board objects to the inclusion of black students eligible to
attend District schools, as well as black parents of such students.
It contends that the class should be redefined as "Black students
who attend schools in the St. Mary Parish School System operated by
the St. Mary Parish School Board.  

The Plaintiffs contend that the class has always included all Black
children eligible to attend the St. Mary Parish public schools" and
should continue to do so.  They assert they have an interest in
protecting the rights of those Black students who are eligible to
attend public schools in the parish, but -- because of the actions
of the District and/or third parties, like charter schools -- are
not enrolled or otherwise might be harmed.

Judge Summerhays concludes the Board's proposed definition is
overly narrow, as it would exclude future students from protection
from the violations alleged in the Plaintiffs' complaint, and it
would exclude past students who would remain eligible to attend the
Board's schools but for the fact that they have been expelled due
to alleged discriminatory practices of the Board.  On the other
hand, he concludes that the Plaintiffs' proposed definition is
overly broad under modern jurisprudence addressing class action
litigation.  Because the Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction,
relief for the class will necessarily provide the same relief to
these students should they attend the Board's schools in the
future.

The Plaintiffs contend parents should continue to be included as
members of the class, arguing "Black parents unquestionably have
the 'personal right' to vindicate their children's right to receive
an education in a racially integrated school."  While the Board
agrees parents may bring suit on behalf of their children, it
argues parents should not be certified as named Plaintiff
representatives in their own capacity nor be included as members of
the class.  

The caselaw does not support the Board's argument, the Court notes.
Numerous federal decisions have recognized that parents have
standing to sue when government policies affect their children's
education. he rationale of these cases is that parents have a
strong interest in the education of their children and suffer
injury when their children experience unlawful discrimination.  The
Judge agrees.  Accordingly, he finds that the custodial adoptive or
custodial biological parent(s) of the class of students set forth
satisfy Article III standing requirements.

For all of these reasons, he certified a class defined as: (1) All
Black students currently enrolled or who will in the future enroll
in schools operated by the St. Mary Parish School Board; (2) all
Black students who previously attended the foregoing schools and
would remain eligible to attend such schools, but for the fact they
were expelled from such schools due to discriminatory policies of
the St. Mary Parish School Board; and (3) the custodial biological
or custodial adoptive parents of the foregoing students.

Next, as to the Rule 23(a) factors, the Judge finds that (i) given
the size of the class, the difficulty in identifying all class
members, and the fact that the class will necessarily include
unknown, unnamed future members, the numerosity requirement has
been met and joinder of all members would be impracticable; (ii)
the class-wide treatment to date has generated "common answers"
which will ultimately drive the resolution of the case; (iii) the
claims of the Plaintiff Class Representatives are typical of those
of the class; and (iv) the class representatives will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class.

As to the requirements of Rule 23(b), the Judge finds that
certification of a (b)(2) class for injunctive relief is
appropriate.  The proposed class, as modified by the Court, alleges
class-wide racial discrimination -- i.e., that the Board continues
to operate its schools in a manner that violates the rights of
Black students under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment -- and is thus precisely the type of class for which Rule
23(b)(2) was created.

Finally, the counsel for the named Plaintiffs have demonstrated
familiarity with the applicable law and dedication to the case.
They have shown they will devote substantial resources to
representing the class and pursuing this litigation.  Accordingly,
the Judge concludes that the counsel for named Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and
appoints them as the class counsel for the class certified in his
Ruling.

For the reasons stated, Judge Summerhays granted the Motion for
Class Recertification, and certified the proposed class as modified
for injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3tr4dsw from Leagle.com.


STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Karinski
v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828.

On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.

One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without
prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.


Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in August 2019,
purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8,
2019, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on public disclosures that were purportedly rendered
misleading based on certain uses of reseller rates.

The company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2019, and its
motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in January
2020.

Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case,
neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor
an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be
determined."

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

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.

SUPREME ADVOCATES: Cain Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CAIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SUPREME ADVOCATES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-12155 (D. Mass., December 2, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed pre-recorded calls
on his cellular telephone line (781) 435-XXXX on June 17, 2020 and
October 1, 2020 in an attempt to promote its debt resolution
services. The Defendant allegedly used pre-recorded messages as its
telemarketing strategy for marketing its services and generating
new customers. The Plaintiff claims that the pre-recorded messages
he received from the Defendant were generic regarding credit relief
services and they invited him to call back the telephone number
949-591-8920. When the Plaintiff return the call, he had spoken to
a certain "Evelyn" who said she worked for the Defendant, and
referred him to its Website for more information.

Because the Plaintiff never provided the Defendant his prior
express written consent to receive such prerecorded calls, his
privacy has been violated, the suit says.

Supreme Advocates, Inc. sells debt resolution services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

                - and –

          Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
          Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
          CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
          160 Speen St., Suite 309
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Tel: (508) 309-4880
          E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


TABULA RASA: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TABULA RASA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.
d/b/a SINFONIARX, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04066 (W.D. Tex.,
November 30, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed solicitation calls
on November 13, 2020 and on November 20, 2020 to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 7670 that was registered with
the National Do Not Call Registry. The Defendant allegedly obtained
the Plaintiff's contact information by accessing his private
medical information, including information regarding his
medications, without obtaining consent from the Plaintiff.

The complaint further asserts that the Defendant's disturbing and
invasive solicitation calls have disrupted the Plaintiff's daily
life and general well-being and have caused actual harm to the
Plaintiff, such as invasion of privacy, nuisance, wasting the
Plaintiff's tie, aggravation, emotional distress and mental anguish
arising from the release of his private medical information,
anxiety, loss of concentration, and the loss of battery charge.

Tabula Rasa Healthcare Group, Inc. d/b/a Sinfoniarx is a healthcare
company that offers consumers pharmaceutical and healthcare
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8180
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kui Zhu, et al., v.
Taronis Technologies Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-04529-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered
an order:

   1. approving the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
      Approval of a Class Action Settlement;

   2. granting proposed Class Certification for Settlement
      Purposes:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Taronis Technologies, Inc. common stock between
      January 28, 2019, and February 12, 2019, both dates
      inclusive (the Class Period), and were damaged thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class by definition are: the Defendants,
      current and former officers and directors of Taronis,
      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. Also excluded from the Class are those Persons
      who are found by the Court to have timely and validly
      requested exclusion from the Class.;

   3. certifying the Lead Plaintiff as class representative for
      the Class; and

   4. appointing Lead Counsel as class counsel for the Class
      pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure.

The Settlement also provides for these terms:

      --  Settlement Administration Fees and Expenses:

          All reasonable costs incurred in identifying Class
          Members and notifying them of the Settlement as well
          as in administering the Settlement shall be paid as
          set forth in the Stipulation without further Court
          order.

      --  Settlement Fund:

          The contents of the Settlement Fund held by Signature
          Bank shall be deemed and considered to be in custodia
          legis of the Court, and shall remain subject to the
          jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as they
          shall be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation
          and/or further order(s) of the Court.

      --  Termination of Settlement:

          If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the
          Stipulation, the Settlement is not approved, or the
          Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to
          occur, this Order shall be vacated, rendered null and
          void, and be of no further force and effect, except
          as otherwise provided by the Stipulation, and this
          Order shall be without prejudice to the rights of Lead
          Plaintiff, the other Class Members, and Defendants,
          and the Parties shall revert to their respective
          positions in the Action as of the date immediately
          prior to the execution of the Stipulation, as provided
          in the Stipulation.

This case concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the market price of Taronis common stock by deceiving the
investing public about the existence of a material contract between
Taronis and the City of San Diego.

Taronis is an energy company that offers technology solutions to
create, process, and produce hydrogen-based fuel.

A copy of the Court's Amended Order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gpcLB8 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Counsel are:

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com

Defendants Counsel are:

          Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1234
          E-mail: lbugni@KSLAW.com

TD BANK: Campagna Suit Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATALIE CAMPAGNA, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-CV-94 (CDL) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Clay D. Land
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
Columbus Division, granted TD Bank's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

Ms. Campagna alleges that TD Bank, the issuer of her secured credit
card, engaged in improper business practices in connection with her
account.  She asserts a breach of contract claim against TD Bank,
along with other claims under Delaware and New York law.
Contending that she is not the only victim of TD Bank's unlawful
conduct, Campagna also hopes to pursue class action claims on
behalf of similarly situated individuals.

TD Bank is a Delaware national banking association with its
executive offices in New Jersey.  Campagna went to a New York TD
Bank branch to apply for a secured credit card.  TD Bank told her
that she would be able to graduate to an unsecured credit card
after maintaining her account in good standing for seven billing
cycles.  When Campagna subsequently contacted a TD Bank customer
service specialist via telephone to ask about her graduation to an
unsecured credit card, she was told that the process would take far
longer than seven months.

The Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding the location of the
customer service specialist or where the graduation decision was
made.  She does note that her credit card agreement with TD Bank
states that certain written customer service correspondence should
be sent to a post office box in Columbus, Georgia, and her credit
card statements had a return address of that same post office box.
She does not allege that she ever sent correspondence to the
Georgia address.  Campagna has made no request to conduct
jurisdictional discovery to determine whether TD Bank has
additional contacts with Georgia.

TD Bank moves to dismiss, arguing that Campagna's allegations,
taken as true, are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
personal jurisdiction.  TD Bank relies entirely on the Due Process
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Land finds that Campagna's Complaint does not allege
sufficient facts to establish general jurisdiction over TD Bank in
Georgia.  Rather, it alleges that TD Bank is headquartered in New
Jersey, and the credit card agreement states that TD Bank is a
national bank with its main office located in Delaware.  The Judge
is unconvinced that simply maintaining a customer service mailbox
in Georgia, without more, means that TD Bank is fairly regarded at
home in Georgia.  Therefore, Campagna's allegations do not support
the exercise of general jurisdiction over TD Bank.

The next question is whether Campagna alleged sufficient facts to
establish specific jurisdiction.  The only alleged connection
between Campagna's claims and Georgia is that Campagna's credit
card agreement with TD Bank states that certain written customer
service correspondence should be sent to a post office box in
Columbus, Georgia, and her credit card statements had a return
address of that same post office box.  Put simply, Judge Land says,
the present Complaint alleges a dispute between a New York
Plaintiff and her Delaware/New Jersey bank with no indication that
the dispute arises from anything that happened in Georgia.
Campagna has failed to allege a sufficient connection between
Georgia and her controversy with TD Bank to establish specific
jurisdiction over her claims against TD Bank.

Judge Land concludes that neither Campagna nor TD Bank reside in
Georgia.  More importantly for purposes of the present order, TD
Bank does not have sufficient minimal contacts with the Peach State
to meet the constitutional due process requirements for the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over it.  Therefore, the Court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction over TD Bank in the action would
violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Accordingly, the Judge granted TD Bank's motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2rrcckk from Leagle.com.


THI OF SOUTH CAROLINA: Faces Koger Suit Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AR'JAH KOGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THI OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT CHARLESTON, LLC
D.B.A. RIVERSIDE HEALTH AND REHAB and FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES LLC D.B.A. FUNDAMENTAL, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-04279-DCN (D.S.C., December 9, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Families First
Coronavirus Response Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act by
terminating the Plaintiff after she refused to report to work due
to COVID-19 related symptoms.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a certified nursing
assistant at Riverside Health and Rehab facility in Charleston,
South Carolina from April 2019 until her termination on July 14,
2020.

THI of South Carolina at Charleston, LLC, doing business as
Riverside Health and Rehab, is a national health care company that
operates skilled nursing facilities, specialty hospitals, and
outpatient rehabilitation clinics, with its principal place of
business in Charleston, South Carolina.

Fundamental Administrative Services LLC, doing business as
Fundamental, is the parent company of THI of South Carolina at
Charleston, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
         MULLANEY LAW
         652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 588-5587
         E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

THOR MOTOR: Two Classes Conditionally Certified in Hayes FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER HAYES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THOR MOTOR COACH, INC.,
Defendant, Cause No. 3:19-CV-00375 DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Damon
R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, conditionally certified two classes.

Jennifer Hayes alleges that Thor Motor violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Indiana law by diluting her overtime wages.  Thor
Motor is a motorhome manufacturing company that has employed
hundreds of non-exempt employees during the last three years.  Ms.
Hayes began working for Thor in March 2015 at its Bristol, Indiana
and Elkhart, Indiana plants as a manufacturing employee.  As a
non-exempt employee, she regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.  She voluntarily resigned in December 2017.

During her shifts, Ms. Hayes clocked in at the beginning of her
workday and clocked out at the end.  She says she was paid based on
the number of units she completed -- known as piece-rate pay.  The
time she spent completing units was considered productive time,
while the time she spent waiting to perform her manufacturing
duties was non-productive time.  She estimates she spent at least
ten percent of her work time in non-productive hours.

Ms. Hayes claims that Thor didn't pay her for non-productive time.
She says she didn't have an agreement with Thor to pay her only for
productive time.  Furthermore, when she worked overtime, she
asserts that Thor paid her only one-half premium for overtime
hours, instead of one and one-half times the regular rate.

Ms. Hayes also complains that Thor made various unlawful payroll
deductions for tools, equipment, and drug screen costs.  On her
paystubs, these deductions were categorized as "purchase," "drug
test," and/or "sales tax purchase."  Ms. Hayes alleges that these
deductions improperly cut into her overtime wages.  She also says
Thor never secured an agreement or wage assignment containing the
required language that informed her it was revocable at any time.

During the three years predating the lawsuit, Ms. Hayes says Thor
employed and continues to employ numerous other workers with
substantially similar job requirements and pay.  Thor's pay system
allegedly includes paying employees for productive hours only,
reducing overtime premiums in half (rather than one and one-half
regular rate), and making unauthorized deductions.  She thus
requests the case be conditionally certified as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  

Ms. Hayes proposes conditionally certifying two collective actions
under the FLSA:

     a. FLSA Piece-Rate Class: All current and/or former employees
of the Defendant who work/worked for it as non-exempt manufacturing
employees in the United States, are/were paid on a piece rate
basis, and who worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek
during the period from May 10, 2016 through the disposition of the
matter; and

     b. FLSA Deduction Class: All current and/or former employees
of the Defendant who were subjected to one or more wage deductions
taken by Thor for costs of tools, equipment and drug tests in
categories Thor called Purchase, Sales Tax Purchase and Drug Test
on employee paystubs in at least one workweek during the period
from May 10, 2016 through the disposition of the matter.

The Court held oral argument on the motion after addressing Thor's
second motion to dismiss in mid-August 2020.  Thor argues against
certification saying Ms. Hayes hasn't demonstrated a company-wide
and unlawful policy of paying its employees piece-rate pay or that
the wage deductions were unlawful under the FLSA.

Judge Leichty concludes that Ms. Hayes has met her step one burden
to certify her FLSA claims as conditional collective actions.  The
Judge granted Hayes' motion to conditionally certify the piece-rate
and deductions classes, though limited in accordance with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y295ggea from
Leagle.com.

Because Ms. Hayes must revise her notice, the Judge ordered her to
submit a supplemental notice.  Hayes submitted an amended proposed
notice on Sept. 9, 2020.  Thor Motor has filed an objection to the
amended notice.


TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Seeks to Certify Nurse Anesthetists Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY DAWN VERBAL,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
v. TIVA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Florida Corporation, ENVISION PHYSICIAN
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and SHERIDAN
HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
0:20-cv-60695-RKA (S.D. Fla., Filed April 3, 2020), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Class defined as:

      "all Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists who
      contracted with the Defendants, nationwide, and who: (1)
      were contractually guaranteed a certain number of weekly
      hours, weekly shifts of a specified duration, or certain
      specific dates of shifts for a particular number of hours
      on each date; (2) had contracts containing a required
      written notice period before either party could cancel;
      and (3) had their contracts and/or assignments canceled or
      terminated between March and June 2020, without the
      contractual notice period elapsing between written notice
      and cancellation/termination;"

   2. appointing herself as class representative;

   3. appointing her counsel, C. Ryan Morgan and Angeli Murthy
      of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as Class Counsel; and

   4. approving the form and method of Notice to be provided to
      the Class and finding the Notice to be fair, reasonable,
      and adequate and consistent with due process.

The Plaintiff contends the Defendants require their clinicians,
including the CRNA class at issue, to sign written contracts which
contain notice provisions requiring either party to give advance
notice if they elect to end or cancel the contract. The contracts
and subsequent clinic assignments also guarantee CRNAs a certain
number of hours and pay per week or guaranteed shift.

After COVID-19 began in the United States in March 2020, instead of
honoring the contracts the Defendants themselves wrote, Defendants
unilaterally and without any notice cancelled at least 61 CRNA
contracts with cancellation dates which were either prior to the
notice itself, or in a time period less than the notice period
required by contract. As a result of this blatant breach of the
written contracts, the class of CRNAs has been damaged.
Specifically, these CRNAs have not received their guaranteed pay
during the required notice period of their contracts (generally 30
days), the complaint says.

The Defendants --
https://www.envisionphysicianservices.com/sheridan-emcare -- are a
"multi-speciality physician group and healthcare management team"
with over 25,000 clinicians across 780 healthcare practices or
systems.

A copy of the Court's order Plaintiff's motion for class
certification dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/3oMAr5v at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  Amurthy@forthepeople.com

TOTAL LIFE: Williams Suit removed to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marilyn Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Total Life Changes, LLC, Case
No. 27-CV-20-14517, was removed from the Hennepin County District
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on
Dec. 3, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-02463 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud.

Total Life Changes, LLC (TLC) -- https://totallifechanges.com/ --
offers health, wellness, and beauty products. The Company offers
soap, hair oil, solution kits, gym bag, eye drops, body cream and
other personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristina Kaluza, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 486-1520
          Fax: (855) 227-5097
          Email: kkaluza@dykema.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Schuler Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Schuler, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05880 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- provides
receivables collection and management services. The Company focuses
on commercial, education, financial, government, healthcare and
other industries in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Tentative Settlement Reached in BCBSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants in the class action suit entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue
Shield Antitrust Litigation, have reached a tentative settlement
agreement with subscribers.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.

Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws.

As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market
allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and boycott conspiracy
implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are allegedly derived
through the BCBSA's BlueCard/National Accounts Program.

Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased
compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber
plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets
have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices
and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers.

Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the Blue Plan
premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a result of
the alleged antitrust violations. Both actions seek injunctive
relief.

Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS, whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in
the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS.

Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined
BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims.
On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the
parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the
standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1
of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense. After
considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment purposes
only) and evidence currently on record in the light most favorable
to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best
Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b)
there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense;
and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules
are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard.

On April 16, 2018 Defendants moved the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
Ruling.

On June 12, 2018 Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant Defendant's
motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018. On
December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court's Standard
of Review Ruling.

The parties re-commenced mediation with subscribers in April 2019
and with providers in September 2019.  

The Defendants have reached a tentative settlement agreement with
subscribers. The agreement remains subject to approval from the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
However, based on this agreement, the Company has accrued $32,000
related to this legal proceeding during the nine months ended
September 30, 2020.

Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.

TRONOX INC: Waleski Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stanley Waleski filed an appeal from the District Court's
Summary Order dated October 28, 2020, and Judgment dated October
28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE TRONOX INCORPORATED,
et al., Debtors, STANLEY WALESKI, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-cv-2128, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiff Appellant appeals two orders of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York: an order of
July 18, 2019, denying Plaintiffs Motion for Remand or Abstention,
and an order of February 21, 2020, granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint as barred by the Pennsylvania statute
of limitations.

Mr. Waleski is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Summary
Order and Judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case to the Pennsylvania state court while Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint as time barred was properly granted, and the
order of February 21, 2020 is affirmed.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Tronox Incorporated, Case
No. 20-3949, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, November 23, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Stanley Waleski, on his own behalf and on
behalf of more than 4,300 similarly situated class members, is
represented by:

          Richard G. Haddad, Esq.
          OTTERBOURG P.C.
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 661-9100
          E-mail: rhaddad@oshr.com  

Defendants-Appellees Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP;
Natalie D. Ramsey; and Leonard A. Busby are represented by:

          Barry M. Kazan, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          335 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 908-3921
          E-mail: kazan@mintzandgold.com

ULTIMATE FOOT: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE ULTIMATE FOOT STORE INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10329-RA
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website,
www.theultimatefootstore.com, is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates 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 website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a foot products company that owns and operates
www.theultimatefootstore.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alexander ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Behavioral Health filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GARY ALEXANDER, et al., the
Plaintiffs v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No.
3:14-cv-05337-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
United Behavioral Health (UBH), which also operates as OptumHealth
Behavioral Solutions, administers mental health and substance use
disorder benefits for commercial welfare benefit plans. In that
capacity, it has developed Level of Care Guidelines and Coverage
Determination Guidelines (Guidelines) that it uses for making
coverage determinations. Plaintiffs in these related class actions
assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), alleging that they were improperly denied benefits
for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders because
UBH's Guidelines do not comply with the terms of their insurance
plans and/or state law.

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review court's appeal of
order, denying its motion to dismiss and vacating motion hearing
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) on April
7, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Gary Alexander, et al v. United
Behavioral Health, Case No. 20-17364, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 3, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellee GARY ALEXANDER, on his own behalf and on behalf
of his beneficiary son, Jordan Alexander; and CORINNA KLEIN, DAVID
HAFFNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690

               - and -

          Jason Cowart, Esq.
          Brian Hufford, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com

Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL DRISCOLL is represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690

               - and -

          Jason Cowart, Esq.
          Brian Hufford, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is represented by:

          Nathaniel Philip Bualat, Esq.
          Thomas F. Koegel, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 365-7294
          E-mail: nbualat@crowell.com
                  tkoegel@crowell.com

               - and -

          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4750
          E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com
                  jromano@crowell.com
         
               - and -

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Wit ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Behavioral Health filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID WIT, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, GARY ALEXANDER,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant. Case
No. 3:14-cv-02346-JCS, Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
United Behavioral Health (UBH), which also operates as OptumHealth
Behavioral Solutions, administers mental health and substance use
disorder benefits for commercial welfare benefit plans. In that
capacity, it has developed Level of Care Guidelines and Coverage
Determination Guidelines (Guidelines) that it uses for making
coverage determinations. Plaintiffs in these related class actions
assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), alleging that they were improperly denied benefits
for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders because
UBH's Guidelines do not comply with the terms of their insurance
plans and/or state law.

The Plaintiffs assert two claims: 1) breach of fiduciary duty
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim) and 2) arbitrary and capricious
denial of benefits (Denial of Benefits Claim). Plaintiffs assert
the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I in all of the operative complaints) and, to
the extent the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek is unavailable
under that section, they assert the claim under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3)(A) (Count III in all of the operative complaints).

The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review court's Order on
Motion for Leave to File, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for
Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on
Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11, Order on Motion to
Certify Class, and Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.

The appellate case is captioned as David Wit, et al. v. United
Behavioral Health, Case No. 20-17363, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 3, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Appellant United Behavioral Health Mediation Questionnaire is
due on December 10, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 4, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 1, 2021;

   -- Appellant United Behavioral Health opening brief is due on
March 15, 2021;

   -- Appellees Gary Alexander, Lori Flanzraich, David Haffner,
Cecilia Holdnak, Mary Jones, Corinna Klein, Brian Muir, Brandt
Pfeifer, Linda Tillitt, David Wit and Natasha Wit answering brief
is due on April 14, 2021;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID WIT; NATASHA WIT; BRIAN MUIR; BRANDT
PFEIFER, on behalf of the Estate of his deceased wife, Lauralee
Pfeifer; LORI FLANZRAICH, on behalf of her daughter Casey
Flanzraich; CECILIA HOLDNAK, on behalf of herself, her daughter
Emily Holdnak; GARY ALEXANDER, on his own behalf and on behalf of
his beneficiary son, Jordan Alexander; and CORINNA KLEIN; DAVID
HAFFNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690

               - and -

          Jason Cowart, Esq.
          Brian Hufford, Esq.  
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com   
                  
               - and -

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com
                  creynolds@zuckerman.com

Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees LINDA TILLITT and MARY JONES are
represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690

               - and -

          Jason Cowart, Esq.
          Brian Hufford, Esq.  
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com   

               - and -

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com
                  creynolds@zuckerman.com

Defendant-Appellant UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is represented by:

          Nathaniel Philip Bualat, Esq.
          Thomas F. Koegel, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 365-7294
          E-mail: nbualat@crowell.com
                  tkoegel@crowell.com

               - and -

          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4750
          E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com
                  jromano@crowell.com
         
               - and -

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com

UNITED STATES: Court Grants Prelim Injunction Bid in Gilliam Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATOYA GILLIAM, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-3504-JMY (E.D. Pa.), Judge John Milton Younge of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiffs Gilliam and Kayla McCrobie commenced the putative class
action against Defendants United States Department of Agriculture
("USDA") and current USDA Secretary George Ervin Perdue III,
challenging USDA's interpretation and implementation of Section
2302(a)(1) of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
("FFCRA").  FFCRA Section 2302, titled "Additional SNAP
Flexibilities in a Public Health Emergency," provides, in Section
2302(a)(1), for emergency allotments under the supplemental
nutrition assistance program ("SNAP") in the event of an emergency
declaration by Federal and State authorities based on an outbreak
of coronavirus disease 2019.

The Plaintiffs bring the suit under the Administrative Procedures
Act ("APA"), alleging that the Defendants' interpretation of
Section 2302(a)(1) is both contrary to the statute's directive and
arbitrary and capricious.  They assert that the Defendants'
unlawful interpretation denies "emergency allotments" to the
neediest SNAP households and, in Pennsylvania, prevents the State
Department of Human Services ("DHS") from providing any "emergency
allotments" to nearly 40% of Pennsylvania's SNAP households.  The
Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as their litigation costs.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert two causes of action
under the APA, alleging that USDA's interpretation and
implementation of the FFCRA is both: (1) arbitrary and capricious
(Count I), and (2) not in accordance with law (Count II).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as:

   All persons living in Pennsylvania who are, were, or will be
   eligible for SNAP benefits during the period for which Congress
   has authorized the issuance of emergency allotments during the
   COVID-19 emergency and who were not provided an emergency
   allotment, or are receiving, have received, or will receive a
   smaller emergency allotment than Congress intended due to
   Defendants' improper interpretation of Section 2302(a)(1) of
   the FFCRA.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.  They seek a preliminary injunction enjoining the
Defendants from relying on the unlawful portion of their guidance
interpreting 'emergency allotments' authorized under Section
2302(a)(1) of the FFCRA as 'supplements,' limited in value to the
difference between the regular monthly benefit SNAP households
receive and the maximum monthly benefit for a given household's
size.

The Defendants filed a response in opposition, and the Plaintiffs
replied back. On Aug. 19, 2020, the parties submitted their joint
stipulation of uncontested facts.

At the core of the preliminary injunction proceeding, the Court is
tasked with determining what was the intent of Congress as
expressed in Section 2302(a)(1).  It must determine whether the
Congress intended, as the Plaintiffs maintain, to require USDA to
assess Pennsylvania's requests for emergency allotments, to
determine whether such requests are supported by sufficient data
(as determined by the Secretary through guidance), and if USDA
concludes they are, to provide the requested emergency allotments
without regard to the amount of a household's regular SNAP
allotment.  Or, as the Defendants contend, whether the Congress
intended to specify the process for assessment and provision of
emergency allotments, understanding and intending that USDA's
implementation of Section 2302(a)(1) would deny any emergency
allotments to approximately 40% of -- and the poorest among --
Pennsylvania's SNAP households.

With this in mind, Judge Younge concludes that the Plaintiffs have
established that a preliminary injunction is warranted.  

First, Judge Younge finds that that USDA's interpretation of, and
Guidance regarding, Section 2302(a)(1) is contrary to law.  The
Defendants' implementation of Section 2302(a)(1) is inconsistent
with the statutory directive requiring USDA to provide
State-requested emergency allotments supported by "sufficient data
(as determined by the Secretary through guidance)."  Under USDA's
Guidance, approval or denial of "emergency allotments" is not based
on the sufficiency of a requesting State's supporting "data," as
that term is commonly understood.  USDA's Guidance and accompanying
waiver forms do not provide for consideration of the varying impact
of COVID-19 and resulting "temporary food needs" across different
States, or for the overall fluctuating and unpredictable impact of
the pandemic.  Instead, USDA automatically denies any emergency
allotments to a substantial percentage of SNAP households solely
because, pre-COVID, they received the maximum applicable
allotment.

The Congress enacted a provision that is unambiguous, even though
hurriedly crafted in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, there is
no basis to disturb the statutory language based on speculation.
In the context of an unprecedented pandemic of varying geographic
severity and unknown duration, it would be illogical to treat
either "emergency allotments" or "temporary food needs" as static
concepts immutably capped at a nationally uniform "thrifty food
plan" established when neither the emergency nor the temporary food
needs existed.

Even the Judge were to speculate, as USDA does, that Congress
considered FNA Section  2014(h)(1) and USDA's Guidance regarding
that provision, the fact that Congress used different terminology
-- providing for "emergency allotments" not "supplements" --
suggests that Congress deliberately did not intend to import USDA's
D-SNAP interpretation into Section 2302(a)(1).

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits.

Second, Judge Younge finds that the denial of a preliminary
injunction will deprive the Plaintiffs -- along with others
comprising the approximately 40% of, and poorest among,
Pennsylvania SNAP households -- of any emergency allotments to
address their temporary food needs resulting from the COVID-19
crisis.  This harm easily qualifies as irreparable.  The
Commonwealth has unambiguously expressed its intent to issue
emergency allotments for all Pennsylvania SNAP households,
including the poorest SNAP households who receive the maximum
regular SNAP allotment because of their very low income.

Third, Judge Younge finds that the balance of equities tips
decidedly in the Plaintiffs' favor.  The injunction sought by the
Plaintiffs does not impose on USDA any additional burden beyond
that imposed by the FFCRA -- they merely seek to compel USDA to
fulfill its existing obligations under the law (i.e., to issue
emergency allotments to Pennsylvania SNAP households if requested
by the Commonwealth and supported by sufficient data).  Further, to
the extent that the injunction may cause USDA to incur additional
expenses or expend appropriations at a quicker pace, the Judge
concludes that these concerns are clearly outweighed by the public
interest in providing immediate assistance to low-income SNAP
households that would otherwise be eligible for relief but have not
received much needed emergency allotments.

Having found that all factors favor the granting of the Plaintiffs'
motion, the Judge must now craft a remedy.  Based on the
submissions in the case and the arguments made by counsel at the
hearing, Judge Younge finds it appropriate to grant preliminary
injunctive relief limited to Pennsylvania SNAP households, as it
would be narrowly tailored to avoid irreparable harm to the named
Plaintiffs and the proposed putative class in the action -- all
persons living in Pennsylvania who are, were or will be eligible
for SNAP benefits during the period for which Congress has
authorized the issuance of emergency allotments during the COVID-19
emergency and who were not provided an emergency allotment.  Put
another way, the scope of relief afforded to the Plaintiffs will be
limited statewide in order to remedy the specific alleged harms
that have occurred in the Commonwealth.

The Judge is also especially mindful that Rule 65(d) provides that
every order granting an injunction and every restraining order must
state its terms specifically and describe in reasonable detail the
act or acts restrained or required. With this in mind, he orders as
follows:  To the extent that the Department of Human Services of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submits requests, in accordance
with Section 2302(a)(1) of the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act (Section 2302(a)(1)), for emergency allotments, supported by
sufficient data (as determined by the Secretary through guidance),
to address the temporary food needs of Pennsylvania households
participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program
under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008:

     (a) The Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from
implementing, or denying such requested emergency allotments based
upon, their unlawful guidance provisions, most recently updated as
of April 21, 2020, stating that a household's emergency allotment
cannot increase the current monthly household SNAP benefit
allotment beyond the applicable maximum monthly allotment for the
household size, and that SNAP households that already receive the
maximum monthly allotment for their household size are not eligible
for emergency allotments; and

     (b) The Defendants will approve or deny such requests in
accordance with the statutory directive of Section 2302(a)(1) as
construed by the Court in the Memorandum issued concurrently with
the Memorandum.

Finally, the Judge has also considered whether the imposition of a
bond is appropriate in the case.  He specifically finds that the
instant case represents a "rare exception" to the rule and will not
require the Plaintiffs to post a bond in the case, given their
financial position, and the fact that the Defendants have failed to
allege any true harm they would sustain as a result of the
injunction.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Younge granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 11, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyuemceb from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Kowalski Files Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Marshall, et al. The case is captioned as Robert M. Kowalski,
persons similarly situated, and Angelo Leslie, Plaintiffs v. United
States Marshall, United States Bureau of Prisons, and United States
of America, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06998 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25,
2020).

The lawsuit is a prisoners' complaint for violation of civil
rights.

The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

United States Marshall is a federal law enforcement agency in the
United States.

United States Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice responsible for
the care, custody, and control of incarcerated individuals.

The Plaintiffs, who are currently incarcerated at Metropolitan
Correctional Center in Chicago, Illinois, appear pro se. [BN]

UNIVERSAL CABLE: Bid to Certify Class in Bailey Suit Now Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey v. UNIVERSAL CABLE
HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS Case No.
2:20-cv-00034 (E.D. Tex., Filed Feb 12, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Rodney Gilstrap entered an order finding as moot the Motion to
Certify Class in light of a Joint Stipulation to Conditional
Certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b).

The certification hearing set for September 24, 2020 was canceled,
and the Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne ordered the parties to file
the stipulation concerning the scope of the class, as well as the
agreed notice and related documents.

The suit alleges violation of the FLSA.

Universal Cable operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides digital cable, internet, phone, and
security services. Universal Cable serves customers throughout the
United States.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Hyatte Seeks Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HYATTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA; and THE BOARD
OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVESITY OF MINNESOTA, Defendants, Case No.
27-CV-20-15837 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., Dec. 1,
2020) seeks to recover proportionate amount of the tuition fee paid
to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the Defendants'
failure to provide the services and experiences as agreed, the
Defendants have not offered to properly refund on a pro-rata basis
the tuition and fees that the Plaintiff and the Class had paid for
the Spring 2020 semester.

Instead, the Defendants have unilaterally elected to shift
financial risk onto its students, and unfairly force them to bear
the burdens of COVID-19.

University of Minnesota operates as an educational institution. The
University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts and
sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law,
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Neil Swartzberg, 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
                  nswartzberg@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.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: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


US BANCORP: Smith, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Plan Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janet Smith, Debra Thorne,
Sonja Lindley and Pamela Kaberline, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. U.S. Bancorp, the Employee Benefits
Committee and John/Jane Does 1-5,, Case No. 0:18-cv-03405-PAM-KMM
(D. Minn., Filed Dec. 14, 2018), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and
      (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      consisting of:

      "All participants or beneficiaries of the U.S. Bank
      Pension Plan, who began receiving pension benefits on or
      after December 14, 2012, and whose monthly benefits were
      reduced by an Early Commencement Factor prescribed in Part
      B of the Plan."

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any individuals
      who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the
      Plan.

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP and
      Bailey & Glasser LLP as lead Class Counsel, and appointing
      the law firm Gustafson Gluek PLLC as local Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants pay retirees who retired
early and accrued benefits under a Final Average Pay Formula less
than the actuarial equivalent of their accrued benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA). The Plaintiffs allege that the reduction in monthly
benefits for early retirees, primarily driven by the Plan's
prescribed early commencement factors (ECFs), are unreasonable and
excessive.

As a result, the Plaintiffs' monthly benefits are less than the
actuarial equivalent of their accrued benefit (calculated as a
single-life annuity taken at age 65), when those two benefits are
compared using the same, reasonable actuarial assumptions.

U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and incorporated in Delaware. It is the
parent company of U.S. Bank National Association, and is the fifth
largest banking institution in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec.
8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2W5ToDR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          Douglas Needham
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com

US OIL FUND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.

On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC, USO, John P.
Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a
purported stockholder class action initiated by Robert Lucas,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The Lucas Class Action complaint alleged that, beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the
Lucas Class Action failed to disclose to investors in USO certain
extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused
the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19
global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.

Plaintiff alleged that USCF, USO, and the other defendants in the
Lucas Class Action possessed inside knowledge about the
consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not
sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after
USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its
investment strategy.

The complaint sought to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

On August 18, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, motions were filed
seeking to consolidate the Lucas Class Action with (i) a purported
stockholder class action initiated on June 31, 2020 by Moshe
Ephrati, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
in which the same defendants named in the Lucas Class Action were
also named as defendants, and (ii) a purported stockholder class
action initiated on August 13, 2020 by Danny Palacios, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, in which the same
defendants as in the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class
Action were named as defendants.

The claims made in the Ephrati Class Action and the Palacios Class
Action were substantively identical to the Lucas Class Action,
except that the putative class period in each of the Ephrati Class
Action and Lucas Class Action begins on March 19, 2020, whereas the
putative class period in the Palacios Class Action begins on
February 25, 2020.

Each of the complainants in the Ephrati Class Action and the
Palacios Class Action sought to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

On September 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the aforementioned motions. It
consolidated the Class Actions into In re: United States Oil Fund,
LP Securities Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 20 civ. 4740
(PGG), and appointed Nutit, A.S. as lead plaintiff.

Any other related securities class actions filed in, or transferred
to, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
in the future also will be consolidated into In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation.

USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Class Actions intend to
vigorously contest the claims made therein and move for their
dismissal.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It operates
pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement
of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013, which grants full
management control to its general partner, United States Commodity
Funds LLC.

US PREMIUM: Antitrust and Labelling Suits vs. NBP Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that National Beef
Packing Company (NBP) continues to defend a consolidated Antitrust
suit in Minnesota, entitled, In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation and
the Labelling cases entitled, Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.
and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al.

NBP 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").

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; Samuels v. Cargill, Inc., et al, 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.

NBP 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, "NBP 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 NBP'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.

USA: Certification of Probable Cause Subclass in Gonzalez Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARDO GONZALEZ; SIMON CHINIVIZYAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DAVID MARIN; DAVID C. PALMATIER; THOMAS
WINKOWSKI, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case Nos.
20-55175, 20-55252 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit:

   (i) affirmed the district court's certification of the Probable
       Cause Subclass;

  (ii) reversed and vacated the State Authority Injunction;

(iii) reversed and vacated the Database Injunction, and remanded
       for the district court to reconsider the Database Claim;
       and

  (iv) reversed and vacated the summary judgment for the
       Government on the Gerstein claim, and remanded for the
       district court to reconsider the claim.

Gerardo Gonzalez is a United States citizen.  He has never been
removable from the United States.  The United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), however, came to a different
conclusion in December 2012.  After Gonzalez was booked on state
law criminal charges by the Los Angeles Police Department, an ICE
agent ran his name through electronic databases, an automated
procedure that ICE uses to determine whether an individual is a
removable noncitizen.  Because one database flagged Gonzalez's
birthplace as being in Mexico, and the agent could not find records
showing that Gonzalez had lawfully entered the United States, the
agent determined that Gonzalez was removable from the United
States.  ICE issued an immigration detainer, requesting that the
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") detain Gonzalez for up to
an additional five days in the Los Angeles County Jail after when
he was entitled to release from custody on state criminal charges
so that ICE could take him into its custody.

While the detainer remained pending, Gonzalez brought the suit
against the Government, raising Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment,
and statutory claims to challenge the legality of the detainer.  He
commenced the suit as a putative class action on June 19, 2013 to
challenge the outstanding immigration detainer against him, which
prevented him from posting bail from custody on state criminal
charges, and which threatened an additional period of detention by
LASD upon his release from that custody.  Within hours after he
commenced suit, the Government cancelled the detainer.  Simon
Chinivizyan, a native of Uzbekistan and a U.S. citizen, became a
Plaintiff upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint.  When he
filed suit, he was detained in the Los Angeles County Jail solely
pursuant to the detainer.

The case proceeded on the Third Amended Complaint, filed in August
2014.  In relevant part, the Plaintiffs raised individual and class
claims that the Government violates the Fourth Amendment (1)
because a detainer is an unlawful seizure without probable cause or
lawful authority, and (2) the Government fails to provide a prompt
probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate
(the Gerstein claim).  The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Gonzalez represents three certified classes which are defined to
include, in relevant part, all current and future individuals who
are subject to an immigration detainer issued by an ICE agent
located in the Central District of California, excluding
individuals with final orders of removal or who are subject to
ongoing removal proceedings.   The district court certified two
classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Judicial Determination Class and Probable Cause
Subclass.  It certified the Judicial Determination Class with both
the Plaintiffs as the representatives.  The claims of this class
concern the Gerstein claim.  The court also certified the Probable
Cause Subclass with Gonzalez as the representative.

The district court entered a judgment and two permanent injunctions
in favor of Gonzalez and the Probable Cause Subclass on Fourth
Amendment claims following a seven-day bench trial.  The State
Authority Injunction enjoins the Government from issuing detainers
from the Central District to law enforcement agencies ("LEAs") in
states that lack state law permitting state and local LEAs to make
civil immigration arrests based on civil immigration detainers.
The Database Injunction enjoins the Government from issuing
detainers to class members based solely on searches of electronic
databases to make probable cause determinations of removability.
The Government appeals the injunctions, and the Plaintiffs cross
appeal a summary judgment ruling in the Government's favor.

The Government first argues that Gonzalez lacked standing to seek
prospective injunctive relief, and thus could not represent the
Probable Cause Subclass on whose behalf the district court issued
the State Authority and Database Injunctions.  It also argues that
ICE's cancellation of the detainer against Gonzalez within hours
after he brought suit shows that he never had a Fourth Amendment
claim because LASD never detained him pursuant to the detainer.

The Ninth Circuit resolves several issues in its Opinion.  First,
the Ninth Circuit holds that Gonzalez had Article III standing to
seek prospective injunctive relief when he commenced suit.  The
Government's cancellation of the detainer against him does not
alter that conclusion.  Second, the Ninth Circuit holds that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the
Probable Cause Subclass pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) with Gonzalez as
the class representative.  Third, the Ninth Circuit holds that 8
U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) does not bar injunctive relief for the
claims in the case because the only provision of the Immigration
and Nationality Act whose text even refers to immigration detainers
is not among the provisions that Section 1252(f)(1) encompasses.

Fourth, the Ninth Circuit reverses and vacates the State Authority
Injunction because the presence or absence of probable cause
determines whether the Government violates the Fourth Amendment
when issuing a detainer, not state law restrictions.  In so
holding, the Ninth Circuit underscores that it does not decide
whether immigration detainers might violate principles of
federalism or preemption.  Fifth, the Ninth Circuit reverses and
vacates the Database Injunction because it is premised on legal
error and lacks critical factual findings.  Notably, the district
court failed to assess error in the system of databases on which
ICE relies to make probable cause determinations of removability.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit reverses the summary judgment for the
Government on the Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Gerstein v. Pugh,
420 U.S. 103 (1975) (the Gerstein claim).  Because the Fourth
Amendment requires probable cause to seize or detain an individual
for a civil immigration offense, it follows that the Fourth
Amendment requires a prompt probable cause determination by a
neutral and detached magistrate to justify continued detention
pursuant to an immigration detainer.

For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3xhlx8n from Leagle.com.

Erez Reuveni (argued), Assistant Director; Francesca Genova and
Archith Ramkumar, Trial Attorneys; Lauren C. Bingham, Senior
Litigation Counsel; William C. Peachey, Director, District Court
Section; Scott G. Stewart, Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.; for Objector-Appellant.

Jennifer Pasquarella (argued), Jessica Karp Bansal (argued), and
Zoe McKinney, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California; Barrett S. Litt and Lindsay B. Battles, Kaye McLane
Bednarski & Litt, Pasadena, California; Spencer E. Amdur and Cody
Wofsy, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco,
California; Omar C. Jadwat, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights
Project, New York, New York; Mark M. Fleming and Ruben Loyo,
National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois; for
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Christopher J. Hajec, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington,
D.C., for Amicus Curiae Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Saira Hussain and Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation,
San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier
Foundation.

Brook Dooley -- bdooley@keker.com -- and Andrew S. Bruns --
abruns@keker.com -- Keker Van Nest Peters LLP, San Francisco,
California; Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.; for
Amicus Curiae Cato Institute.

Susan M. Krumplitsch -- susan.krumplitsch@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP (US), East Palo Alto, California; Alexis Burgess --
alexis.burgess@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles,
California; for Amici Curiae National Immigration Project of the
National Lawyers Guild; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; University
Of Nevada, Las Vegas Immigration Clinic; National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington Defender Association; Brooklyn
Defender Services; Bronx Defenders; and Immigrant Defense Project.

Anne Lai, University of California, Irvine School of Law, Irvine,
California, for Amici Curiae Law and History Professors.

Michael Shipley -- michael.shipley@kirkland.com -- Jonathan Faria
-- jonathan.faria@kirkland.com -- and Eric Sefton --
eric.sefton@kirkland.com -- Kirkland Ellis LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Katherine Evans, Christine Mullen, Zachary Pollack, and
Amanda Ng, Duke Immigrant Rights Clinic, Duke University School of
Law; for Amici Curiae Organizations That Represent Individuals
Subject to Civil Arrest.


USCB INC: Yeftanoday Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USCB, Inc. The case
is styled as Jan Yeftanoday, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. USCB, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05878
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020).

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

Uscb, Inc., -- https://uscbamerica.com/ -- doing business as USCB
America, provides accounting services. The Company offers strategic
business process outsourcing and full-service accounts receivable
management solutions to healthcare providers, retail, banking,
creditors, and government municipalities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


USHEALTH ADVISORS: Class Certification Bid in Hirsch Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HIRSCH, ET AL., v.
USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. e 4:18-cv-00245-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order denying the
Motion for Class Certification, on behalf of:

   "all natural persons in the United States who, from March 29,
   2014 to the date of the Court's Order granting class
   certification: (a) received more than one telephone
   solicitation call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf
   of USHealth more than 31 days after registering the landline,  
   wireless, cell or mobile telephone number on which they
   received those calls with the National Do-Not-Call Registry,
   or (b) received one or more calls after registering the
   landline, wireless, cell, or mobile telephone number on which
   they received the calls with USHealth's Internal Do-Not-Call
   list."

The Court held that, because Hirsch failed to show common questions
predominate over questions only affecting individual members, he
failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). No
amount of additional discovery or further rounds of lengthy motions
would change this outcome.

Hirsch brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), which prohibits certain telephone solicitations to
residential phones after the number is listed on either a national
or internal do-not-call list.

Hirsch alleges the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs USHealth
Advisors, LLC and USHealth Group, Inc. and their agents, after he
listed his number on both do-not-call lists, solicited health
insurance to his cell phone. The Defendants deny this allegation
and counterclaim that Hirsch fraudulently represented his interest
in th Defendants' product—repeatedly inveigling the Defendants'
agents to call him -- solely to bring this TCPA claim.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 7, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Q4Mt2 at no
extra charge.[CC]

VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Seeks Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIANA ROSARIO, as
Administratrix for the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON,
ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI and ANDREYA CRAWFORD on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act:

   a. conditionally certifying the case as a Collective Action;

   b. permitting themselves to circulate a Notice of Lawsuit and
      Consent to Join to similarly situated employees;

   c. approving the text of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Lawsuit
      and Consent to Join;

   d. requiring the Defendant to provide their counsel with a
      complete list in electronic form of names, mail addresses,
      email addresses, and telephone numbers of all current and
      former non-executive corporate and retail employees, who
      were employed by the Defendant in the United States from
      December 13, 2016 to the present;

   e. requiring the Defendants to post a copy of the Notice of
      Lawsuit at all their locations in Colorado, Georgia,
      Florida, California, Boston, Texas, Las Vegas, New York,
      and Hawaii;

   f. permitting all similarly situated individuals 60 days to
      opt into the case;

   g. tolling the statute of limitations for all similarly
      situated individuals from the date of the motion to
      certify until the date the Court issues an order on the
      motion; and

   h. granting such other relief that this Court deems just and
      proper.

Valentino operates men's and boy's clothing stores.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fYiRrW at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class, are:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
          E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
                  chaya@norinsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Keith A. Markel, Esq.
          John B. Fulfree, Esq.
          Fred H. Perkins, Esq.
          Christopher W. Pendleton, Esq.
          MORRISON COHEN, LLP
          909 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 735-8736
          Facsimile: (212) 735-8708
          E-mail: kmarkel@morrisoncohen.com
                  jfulfree@morrisoncohen.com
                  fhperkins@morrisoncohen.com
                  cpendleton@morrisoncohen.com

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Mathews Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Trenton Vicinage, denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended putative class action complaint, SCOTT MATHEWS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Civil Action
No. 19-21442 (D. N.J.).

In September 2018, the Plaintiff discovered while performing a
routine review of his credit report, that on Sept. 10, 2018, the
Defendant performed a credit inquiry on him.  In doing so, it
allegedly obtained access to his credit report.  He alleges that he
was not, at that time, or any other time, the Defendant's actual or
prospective customer.

The Plaintiff subsequently received a letter, dated Sept. 25, 2018,
informing him of a Verizon account opened in his name.  He alleges
that he had not opened an account with the Defendant or any of its
subsidiaries.  The Defendant acknowledged by letter dated Oct. 1,
2018, that the Plaintiff had not opened or initiated the account in
question.  The letter explained that Verizon had completed its
investigation into his claim regarding the Verizon Wireless account
and has concluded that the Plaintiff is not responsible for any of
the charges on the account.  Further, it stated that Verizon would
submit a request to each of the three major credit reporting
agencies to remove the Plaintiff from any of the reporting on the
account.

On Nov. 14, 2019, the Defendant allegedly conducted another credit
inquiry on the Plaintiff and accessed his credit report.  Again,
the Plaintiff asserts that he had not opened or sought to open an
account with the Defendant or any of its subsidiaries.  Following
the second credit inquiry, the Defendant allegedly sent cellular
phone equipment to his home, which the Plaintiff had not ordered.

When the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant in November 2019, about
the unauthorized credit inquiry, the Defendant purportedly agreed
to remove both the September 2018 and November 2019 inquiries from
the Plaintiff's credit reports.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant failed to do so, and never explained to him why the
credit inquiries were conducted without his authorization.
However, each time he contacted Verizon he was allegedly directed
to the company's "Fraud Department."  The Plaintiff explains that,
to his knowledge, he was not a victim of identity theft.  The
Plaintiff, relying on publicly posted complaints from various
internet websites, further alleges that the Defendant routinely
obtains credit reports for individuals who are neither current nor
its prospective customers.

The Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class action complaint
against the Defendant on Dec. 17, 2019, asserting a violation of
Section 1681b of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint, and in response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on March 3, 2020.  On May 14, 2020, the Defendant filed
the instant motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the
FCRA by knowingly obtaining his consumer report without a
permissible purpose and without authorization from him, in
violation of Section 1681b.  The Defendant argues that he has not
pled sufficient facts to allege a FCRA violation and that it had a
permissible purpose in accessing his credit report.  Furthermore,
it argues that the heightened pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 9(b) should apply to the instant motion rather than the pleading
standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Id. at 11-12.

Judge Wolfson rejects the Defendant's arguments that the heightened
particularly requirement of Rule (9b) applies in the instant
motion.  The only claim presented in Plaintiff's Complaint is a
violation of the FCRA.  Despite the Defendant's assertions to the
contrary, the Plaintiff's theory of the case is not grounded in
allegations of fraud such that it would trigger the application of
Rule (9)(b).  

Reviewing the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 8, the Judge
finds that although the Defendant is correct that several courts,
outside of the Circuit, have held that Section 1681b is not
violated when a business obtains a credit report as a result of an
identity thief's fraudulent application for services or credits,
unlike in the cases relied upon by the Defendant, it is not alleged
that the Plaintiff was a victim of identity theft, nor do the
Complaint's factual averments plainly support the conclusion that
he was a victim of identify theft.  The Plaintiff's theory is
plausible on its face, and, irrespective of his failure to identify
a motive for the Defendant's behavior, the Plaintiff has pled
enough factual information to support each element of a Section
1681b claim.  Accordingly, the Judge will not dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint on that basis.

The Plaintiff also proffers an alternate basis for finding a
Section 1681b violation.  He asserts that regardless of whether
Verizon believed he was a potential customer, the Defendant
violated the FCRA, by failing to obtain his written authorization
prior to accessing his credit report.  The Judge holds that the
Plaintiff cannot sustain a FCRA claim based on the Defendant's
alleged failure to obtain written authorization to access his
credit report, so long as the Defendant had a permissible purpose
for accessing the report.

In order to state his claim that the Defendant violated the FCRA
and recover damages, the Plaintiff must establish that it willfully
or negligently failed to comply with a requirement imposed by the
FCRA.  The Defendant claims that he has not pleaded sufficient
facts supporting his allegation that Defendant acted "willfully" in
violating the FCRA.

The Judge opines that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts
that he was forced to expend time, resources, and effort in
attempting to remedy the situation with the Defendant's inquiries
into his credit.  It is plausible that such repeated efforts would
cause an individual stress or anxiety, and that a jury could find
he suffered emotional distress from the Defendant's actions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the
Defendant acted negligently and identified actual damages stemming
from that negligence.

The Judge also opines that the Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts
showing more than a sheer possibility that the Defendant acted
unlawfully and in violation of the FCRA.  From the facts, one can
reasonably infer that the Defendant either, in error or as a result
of an oversight, or some other circumstance which could potentially
constitute negligence, accessed the Plaintiff's credit report.  The
facts presented by the Plaintiff are sufficient to suggest that the
Defendant was put on notice prior to the November 2019 credit
inquiry that the Plaintiff was not seeking to initiate a business
transaction.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint is denied, the Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 1, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3yhr7hx from Leagle.com.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Summary Judgment in Roper Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, for themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendants, Case No. 18-5270 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Edward G. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

Plaintiffs Roper and Johnson have brought claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA"), and Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") against their
purported former employers, claiming that they were not properly
compensated for pre-shift work, meal break work, and post-shift
work.  They filed a class and collective action complaint against
two Defendants, Verizon Communications ("VCI") and Cellco, on Dec.
7, 2018.

VCI is a holding company that, acting through its subsidiaries, is
one of the world's leading providers of communications, information
and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses
and governmental agencies.  Cellco remains a partnership, comprised
of partners that VCI owns.  Throughout its entire history, Cellco
has had its own human resources infrastructure, real estate
holdings and management, and supply chain.

Verizon Pennsylvania hired Ms. Roper as a cell-center
representative at its Lehigh Call Center on Jan. 25, 2007.  Ms.
Johnson began her employment with Cellco on Sept. 16, 2002, and she
worked as an at-will employee without the rights or protections of
a collective bargaining agreement.  In February 2007, Ms. Johnson
received a promotion from cellular account activations to technical
support.  Cellco terminated Ms. Johnson's employment on Oct. 9,
2018.

The Court held an initial pretrial conference on March 21, 2019,
during which the defense counsel raised concerns about the
sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.  After the initial
pretrial conference, it entered an order (with the agreement of the
parties) that the Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by no
later than May 10, 2019.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended collective and class action
complaint against VCI, Cellco, and a new Defendant, Verizon
Pennsylvania, on May 10, 2019.  In the amended complaint, they
generally alleged that, inter alia, the Defendants, acting as joint
employers, violated the FLSA, the PMWA, and the IMWL by failing to
compensate them (and all putative collective and class members)
during pre-shift work, meal break work, and post-shift work.

On May 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
class certification.  The Court granted the motion on May 29, 2019,
after holding a telephone conference on May 28, 2019.

The Defendants separately filed answers to the amended complaint on
June 7, 2019.  After multiple extensions for discovery on the issue
of joint employer status, the Defendants filed their motion for
summary judgment on the issue, arguing that VCI did not employ
either Plaintiff, with Verizon Pennsylvania directly employing Ms.
Roper and Cellco employing Ms. Johnson.

The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss VCI from the lawsuit with
prejudice because it was not a joint employer of Ms. Roper, who
worked at Verizon Pennsylvania, or Ms. Johnson, who worked at
Cellco.

The Plaintiffs argue that every employee at a Verizon
subsidiary--be it Verizon Pennsylvania or Cellco--is jointly
employed by VCI.  Therefore, Ms. Roper and Ms. Johnson are VCI
employees.  Further, when Donna Stufflet, a different Lehigh Call
Center manager employed by Verizon Pennsylvania, made decisions
about Ms. Roper's employment at Verizon Pennsylvania or when Khem
Davis, the highest-level manager in the Tech Support Cue at
Cellco's Rolling Meadows site, made decisions about Ms. Johnson's
employment at Cellco, they were VCI employees acting on VCI's
behalf.

Judge Smith explains that there is no dispute that Verizon
Pennsylvania directly employed Ms. Roper and Cellco directly
employed Ms. Johnson.  The question remains whether VCI also
employed the Plaintiffs as a "joint employer."

First, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not produced
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact
that the managers and supervisors at the subsidiaries are employees
of VCI.  Because of this lack of evidence, there is no triable
issue of material fact that when local managers made on-site
decisions about Ms. Roper's employment, they did so as employees of
VCI.  He also notes that, with regard to Cellco, the Plaintiffs
provide no evidence to demonstrate that VCI executives or officers
are involved in any firing decisions at Cellco.

Second, there is a good deal of overlap in the way business
functions at Verizon Pennsylvania and Cellco.  The overlap is
seemingly attributable to Verizon-wide policies and procedures.
Reviewing these policies and procedures to examine whether they
amount to evidence that VCI had authority over other conditions of
the Plaintiffs' work, the Judge finds no evidence of any such
authority to control or actual control on the part of VCI.

Third, the Judge finds that Ms. Roper and Ms. Johnson's day-to-day
supervision was undoubtedly in the hands of their respective
on-site managers at Verizon Pennsylvania and Cellco.  The
Plaintiffs have introduced no evidence of VCI's involvement in
Verizon Pennsylvania or Cellco's day-to-day management of them,
including imposing any discipline.  He has already explained why
the record does not demonstrate even a disputed issue of material
fact as to whether supervisors and managers at Verizon Pennsylvania
or Cellco are employees of VCI.

Fourth, the undisputed evidence of record shows that Cellco and
Verizon Pennsylvania maintained and controlled the Plaintiffs'
records, and, even to the extent that it is reasonable to infer
that, for example, another shared-services entity processes payroll
for VCI's subsidiaries, there is no evidence that VCI had actual
control of any employee records, including the Plaintiffs'
records.

Fifth, the evidence in the record did not show that VCI exercised
an exceptional degree of control over every aspect of Verizon's
business, or more specifically, the Plaintiffs and the other call
center employees of its subsidiaries, Verizon Pennsylvania and
Cellco.

Finally, after considering the Plaintiffs' total employment
situation and the economic realities of their relationships, the
Judge finds that VCI was not a joint employer of the Plaintiffs or
the other call-center employees.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Smith concludes that the Plaintiffs
have not provided evidence that there is a triable issue of
material fact as to VCI's status as a joint employer of the
Plaintiffs.  Upon review of the record, he finds that no reasonable
juror could find that VCI was the Plaintiffs' employer.  The Judge
granted the motion for summary judgment and will enter a separate
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4mtvp63 from Leagle.com.


VERSO CORPORATION: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD BAILEY and JAMES
SPENCER, for themselves and others similarly-situated, and UNITED
STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED
INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC, v.
VERSO CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00332-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting their motion for class certification:

   2. preliminarily approving the parties' settlement;

   3. approving the proposed notice with the revised claim
      form; and

   4. setting an objection deadline and schedule a fairness
      hearing.

The Settlement provides that:

   A. The parties agree to a Rule 23 class of "all living and
      deceased retirees" from Verso's Wickliffe mill who were
      affected by Verso’s termination of the life insurance
      death benefits.

   B. There are at least 152 retirees in the proposed class. The
      parties agreed to redact the name of John Kelley of
      Mexico, Maine and replace his name with John Calvin Kelly.

   C. The Defendant shall engage an insurer to provide all Class
      Members living at the time of the Effective Date of this
      Agreement ("Living Class Members") with a life-insurance
      death benefit for their respective lifetimes. The amount
      of the insurance shall be $2,750 and the insurance shall
      remain in effect for the lifetime of each living class
      member.

   D. The Defendant shall provide the beneficiary or next of kin
      of any Class Member who died before the Effective Date of
      this Agreement ("Deceased Class Members") with a one-time
      lump-sum payment of $3,000. To get the $3,000, the
      beneficiary must sign a release that discharges Defendant
      Verso Corporation and its agents from any and all claims
      asserted in the Lawsuit concerning cancellation or non-
      payment of death benefits to the beneficiary. It is
      believed that about six of the retirees in the proposed
      class have died.

   E. The Defendant agrees to pay class counsel Legghio &
      Israel attorney's fees of $80,000 and costs of $2,874. The
      requested fees and costs are based on only a portion of
      the hours worked and expenses paid on plaintiffs’ behalf
      in the course of this lawsuit. As of March 31, 2020
      plaintiffs have accrued more than 500 hours of attorney
      and paralegal time and incurred costs of approximately
      $3,500.

The Plaintiffs are retirees (1) Clifford Bailey and (2) James
Spencer, and their former union, (3) United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (USW). USW
represented production and maintenance employees at the now-closed
Wickliffe, Kentucky paper mill.

The Defendant is Verso Corporation. USW and Verso were parties to
collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) governing the Wickliffe
mill. The CBAs provided each retiree with life insurance providing
a $4,000 death benefit.

The Plaintiffs sue to enforce collectively-bargained life insurance
promises of $4,000 in life insurance death benefits made to
retirees from the Wickliffe mill.

A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/377fKLv at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 South Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: israel@legghioisrael.com
                  jga@legghioisrael.com

               - and -

          David M. Cook, Esq.
          COOK & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
          30 Garfield Place, Suite 540
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 287-6980
          E-mail: dcook@econjustice.com

VERTAFORE INC: Masciotra Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conner Masciotra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VERTAFORE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03603 (D. Colo., Dec. 8, 2020), is brought as a result
of the Defendant's failure to safeguard and protect their private
and confidential information, including State of Texas driver's
license numbers, names, dates of birth, addresses, and vehicle
registration histories.

On November 10, 2020, Vertafore announced that it had stored the
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information on an unsecured
external server that was accessed by unauthorized third parties
sometime between March 11, 2020 and August 1, 2020. As a result of
Vertafore's conduct, approximately 27.7 million Texas drivers'
personal information were disclosed to and accessed by unknown
third parties without authorization.

Vertafore failed to discover the Data Breach until mid-August and
only confirmed publicly, nearly three months later, that as a
result of their negligence, the unsecured external server storing
the Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information was
accessed by third parties without authorization. As a result of
this delay, the Plaintiff and Class members were not provided
adequate notice that their personal information was compromised for
several months and were unable to take steps to proactively
mitigate the harm caused by the Data Breach.

Vertafore acted negligently in failing to adopt reasonable security
protocols to prevent and detect the Data Breach. Had Vertafore
taken these measures, the Plaintiff and Class members would not
have been harmed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas
and a resident of Dallas County who has had a Texas driver's
license.

Vertafore, Inc. is an insurance software provider, and is
incorporated in Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: afiorilla@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (215) 399-4770
          Email: achristina@lowey.com


VMG PARTNERS: Salony Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VMG Partners, LLC.
The case is styled as John Salony, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VMG Partners, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10273 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Fraud."

VMG Partners, LLC -- https://www.vmgpartners.com/ -- operates as a
private equity firm. The Firm prefers to invests in produce
lifestyle, wellness, food, beverage, personal care, pet, and
leisure products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


WAKEMED: Nicholson Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------
Tekisha L. Nicholson, Toby Beliveau, Alexander Carlisle and Earlene
N. Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WAKEMED, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WAKEMED, THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE OF WAKEMED, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
5:20-cv-00662-FL (E.D.N.C., Dec. 8, 2020), is brought pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the
Plan's fiduciaries, which include WakeMed and the Board of Period
Directors of WakeMed and its members during the Class and the
Finance Committee of WakeMed and its members during the Class
Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing
a plan of similar scope.

At all times during the Class Period (December 7, 2014 through the
date of judgment) the Plan had at least 500 million dollars in
assets under management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had
over 710 million in assets under management that were/are entrusted
to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under
management qualifies it as a large plan in the defined contribution
plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States.
As a large plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power
regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against
participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not try to
reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to
scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to
ensure it was prudent.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping
costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable
fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of
dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims
against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty
and prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count
Two), says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan

WakeMed is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal
place of business being in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Szymankiewicz, Esq.
          MATHESON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          127 West Hargett Street, Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: (919) 335-5291
          Fax (919) 516-0686

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 233-4101
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Phone: (610) 890-0200
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com


WELD COUNTY, CO: Prelim Injunction in Martinez Has 58-Day Extension
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS MARTINEZ and CHAD HUNTER, Plaintiffs, on their
own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Civil Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.),
Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado extended the Court's order granting a preliminary
injunction for an additional 58 days.

The injunction order will expire on Feb. 5, 2021, unless extended
by the Court.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  On May 11, 2020,
the Court entered a preliminary injunction against the Defendant in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado.  On July
29, 2020, the Court extended the order and has, at the parties'
request, extended it several more times since then.  The
preliminary injunction expired on Dec. 9, 2020.

On Nov. 30, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and
Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice
(the "Class Settlement Motion").  Contemporaneously, they moved for
a fifth extension of the preliminary injunction and a stay of all
proceedings for the earlier of either 60 days or until such time as
the Court enters an order on the Class Settlement Motion.

The parties argue that a stay is appropriate under the String
Cheese Incident factors because: (1) there will be no prejudice to
the Plaintiffs because they desire the resolution of the action
through the Class Settlement Motion, and any interest in proceeding
with discovery is less than their interest in the Class Settlement
Motion; (2) though an extension of the preliminary injunction will
burden the Defendant, the Defendant believes that the burden of
participating in discovery while awaiting a determination on the
Class Settlement Motion would be greater; (3) a stay would prevent
unnecessary pretrial and trial proceedings as the proposed
settlement will resolve, many, if not all, factual and legal issues
between the parties and a grant of the Class Settlement Motion will
eliminate the need for discovery; (4) the proposed class has an
interest in obtaining the relief in the Class Settlement Motion;
and (5) the public interest is in an efficient and just resolution,
which a stay will promote by eliminating wasteful efforts.

Judge Brimmer agrees with the parties that a stay is warranted.  He
finds that a stay until the Court rules on the Class Settlement
Motion will prejudice neither party, will promote court efficiency,
will promote the interests of the proposed class, and will promote
the public interest by conserving judicial resources.

Accordingly, Judge Brimmer granted the Joint Motion for Fifth
Extension of Preliminary Injunction Order and for Stay of All
Proceedings Pending Ruling on Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a Class and
Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post Class Notice.
The case is stayed until the entry of an order of the Court on the
Class Settlement Motion.  The Court's order granting a preliminary
injunction is extended for an additional 58 days.  The Order will
expire on Feb. 5, 2021, unless extended by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3p84tqp from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Liguori Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Hernandez Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM LIGUORI, JR.; TRICIA LIGUORI; JOSE AGUILAR;
and ELIZABETH MANLEY, each individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 10677 (VB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York:

  (i) granted the Defendant's motion to stay the proceeding until
      the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
      California determines whether to grant final approval of a
      proposed nationwide class settlement in Hernandez v. Wells
      Fargo Bank, N.A., 18 Civ. 7354 (N.D. Cal.); and

(ii) terminated without prejudice the Defendant's motion
      pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint for
      failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs the Liguoris, Aguilar, and Manley, each individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the putative
class action against Defendant Wells Fargo, alleging violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and state law.

In December 2005, Aguilar and Manley purchased a residential
property located at 203 Edwin Street, Chittenango, New York.  To do
so, Aguilar and Manley took out a loan and executed a note as
security for same.  Thy also executed a mortgage, encumbering 203
Edwin Street, as further security for the note.  From August 2011
to September 2014, the Defendant serviced Aguilar and Manley's
mortgage loan.

In May 2011, Aguilar and Manley defaulted on their note and
mortgage, and in August 2012, the Defendant commenced a foreclosure
proceeding against Aguilar and Manley in Supreme Court, Madison
County.  At some point in time, the Defendant assigned to U.S. Bank
its interest in Aguilar and Manley's mortgage loan.  In July 2015,
the Supreme Court, Madison County, entered a judgment of
foreclosure and sale, and on Nov. 30, 2015, U.S. Bank sold Aguilar
and Manley's home, 203 Edwin Street, at a foreclosure sale.

In October 2006, the Liguoris purchased a residential property
located at 40 South Parliman Road, Lagrangeville, New York.  To do
so, the Liguoris took out a loan and executed a note as security
for same.  They also executed a mortgage, encumbering 40 South
Parliman Road, as further security for the note.  From October 2006
to March 2015, the Defendant serviced the Liguoris' mortgage loan.

In 2013, the Liguoris defaulted on their note and mortgage, and
sought from the Defendant certain mortgage repayment assistance.
The Defendant denied the Liguoris certain mortgage assistance, and
commenced a foreclosure proceeding against them in Supreme Court,
Dutchess County.  In November 2014, the Supreme Court, Dutchess
County, entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and on March
10, 2015, the Defendant caused the Liguori's home, 40 South
Parliman Road, to be sold at a foreclosure sale.

The Plaintiffs allege that by letter dated Sept. 18, 2018, the
Defendant notified them, that an error in its automated decisioning
software for residential mortgage loan servicing caused the
Plaintiffs to be denied approval for trial loan modifications to
which they would otherwise have been entitled.

On Dec. 5, 2018, a putative nationwide class action, Hernandez, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs in Hernandez allege errors in Wells
Fargo's automated decisioning software for residential mortgage
loan servicing, and inadequate compliance, led Wells Fargo to delay
or deny trial loan modifications and repayment plans for borrowers
who were otherwise eligible for same pursuant to certain loan
modification programs, such as HAMP.

Since Dec. 5, 2018, more than a dozen similar lawsuits have been
filed in various jurisdictions across the United States, alleging,
as in Hernandez, that errors in Wells Fargo's automated decisioning
software for residential mortgage loan servicing, and inadequate
compliance, led Wells Fargo to delay or deny trial loan
modifications and repayment plans for borrowers who were otherwise
eligible for same under certain loan modification programs.  The
instant action, filed in November 2019, is one such lawsuit, in
which Aguilar, Manley, and the Liguoris bring claims on behalf of
themselves and a proposed putative class of New York mortgagors.

On Jan. 29, 2020, the Hernandez court certified the following
nationwide breach of contract class:

  All persons in the United States who between 2010 and 2018
  (i) qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan
  pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises
  (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing
  Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Treasury's Home
  Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); (ii) were not offered a
  home loan modification or repayment plan by Wells Fargo due to
  excessive attorneys' fees being included in the loan
  modification decisioning process; and (iii) whose home Wells
  Fargo sold in foreclosure.

The parties in Hernandez have negotiated a settlement agreement to
settle all class claims, and on April 19, 2020, the Hernandez court
granted preliminary approval of that settlement.  On June 8, 2020,
the Hernandez plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final
approval of the proposed class settlement.  On Aug. 20, 2020, the
district court held a hearing respecting final settlement approval,
and continued the hearing to Oct. 1, 2020.

On Jan. 14, 2020, a group of plaintiffs in one of the similar,
subsequent litigations filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), seeking to join Hernandez and
nine other actions in a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), and
requesting consolidation.  On March 26, 2020, the JPML denied the
petition and request for consolidation.

On March 9, 2020, roughly two weeks prior to the JPML's decision,
the Defendant moved to stay the proceeding until the JPML ruled on
the pending petition for transfer and consolidation.  On March 30,
2020, the Court denied the Defendants' motion as moot in view of
the JPML's March 26, 2020, Order.

Now pending are the Defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and motion to
stay the proceeding until the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California determines whether to grant final approval
of a proposed nationwide class settlement in Hernandez.  The
Defendant argues the instant matter should be stayed to conserve
resources and provide the Plaintiffs and the relevant members of
the putative class with an opportunity to review the final
settlement terms and decide whether to join the settlement or opt
out and pursue whatever claims remain to them in the forum.  The
Plaintiffs oppose defendant's request.

In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts in the circuit consider
five Kappel v. Comfort factors: (1) the private interests of the
plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as
balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2)
the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (3) the
interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties
to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.

Judge Briccetti agrees with the Defendant.  Applying the pertinent
standards, the Judge Bricetti concludes a stay is warranted.  The
first Kappel factor warrants stay.  Any resolution in Hernandez
will affect at least some members of the proposed putative class in
the action and, consequently, the issues in the case.  The second
and third Kappel factors also warrant a stay.  Because the proposed
putative class substantially overlaps with the Hernandez settlement
class, the Defendant faces duplicative discovery and litigation
practice with respect to the proposed class members in the case.
The fourth and fifth Kappel factors further warrant a stay of the
proceeding until the Hernandez court renders a decision on the
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement.  In the
interest of judicial economy, the parties' motion briefing can
easily be re-filed and adjudicated once the motion for final
settlement approval in Hernandez is resolved and the stay in the
matter is lifted.

For these reasons, Judge granted the motion to stay the instant
case until the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California determines whether to grant final approval of a proposed
nationwide class settlement in Hernandez.  The Judge stayed the
matter until further Court order.  The Defendant will notify the
Court within 10 days of the district court's resolution of the
motion for final settlement approval in Hernandez.  The motion to
dismiss is terminated without prejudice to refiling if and when the
stay in the case is lifted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ajh789 from
Leagle.com.

                   Status Update

The parties submitted to the Court on Nov. 30, 2020 a joint update
on the status of class settlement in Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., No. 3:18-cv07354-WHA (N.D. Cal.), of which the Liguori
plaintiffs are class members. Final settlement distributions have
not yet been made in Hernandez, and the Hernandez parties
anticipate further instruction from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in December.

The parties thus propose that the Court continue to stay the
Liguori Action in accordance with the Sept. 8 Order, until the
parties are able to inform the Court that the Liquori plaintiffs'
Hernandez settlement distribution has been made.

The Court took into consideration the parties' update, and ruled in
a Dec. 1, 2020 Order that the Liguori case remains stayed.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Harrington Suit Gets Prelim. Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Shawn Harrington, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Defendant,
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11180-RGS (D. Mass.), Judge Richard D.
Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the proposed settlement
agreement.

The Parties have reached a proposed Settlement of the Action.  On
review, Judge Stearns finds the proposed Settlement fair,
reasonable and adequate.

For purposes of the Settlement only, the Court conditionally
certified the following Settlement Class: The individuals who were
borrowers on a Wells Fargo Auto loan who may have received in
excess of two telephone calls from Wells Fargo Auto in
Massachusetts within a seven-day period to their residence,
cellular telephone, or other telephone number regarding their
automobile debt between April 26, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2019, as
reflected on the Class List.

The Named Plaintiff, Shawn Harrington, will be the Settlement Class
Representative; Lemberg Law, LLC, as the settlement Class; and JND
Class Action Administration as the Settlement Administrator in the
Action.

Any information on the Class List will be provided solely for the
purpose of providing Notice to the Settlement Class and informing
the Settlement Class Members about their rights further to the
Settlement, will be kept in strict confidence, will not be
disclosed to any third party other than as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement to effectuate the terms of the Agreement or
the administration process, will be used for no other cases, and
will be used for no other purpose.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Dec. 17,
2020 at 2:00 p.m.

The Judge approved, as to form and content, the use of a Long Form
Notice and Short Form/Postcard Notice.  Written Notice will be
provided to members of the Settlement Class by first-class U.S.
mail using Wells Fargo's records as well as other investigations
deemed appropriate by the Settlement Administrator, updated by the
Settlement Administrator in the normal course of business.  All
Notices will be mailed within 30 days of the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order.  Prior to the Final Approval Hearing,
the Settlement Administrator will submit to the Court a declaration
of compliance with these notice provisions.

The cost of Notice and settlement administration will be paid by
Wells Fargo and from the Settlement Fund, as provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.

Any member of the Settlement Class who desires to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, and therefore not be bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, must submit to the Settlement
Administrator, pursuant to the instructions and requirements set
forth in the Notice, a timely and valid written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than 30 days before the Final
Approval Hearing.

Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, the Plaintiff, all persons in the Settlement Class, and
persons purporting to act on their behalf are enjoined from
commencing or prosecuting (either directly, representatively, or in
any other capacity) any Released Claim against any of the Released
Parties in any action, arbitration or proceeding in any court,
arbitration forum or tribunal.

All discovery and other litigation activity in the Action is stayed
pending final approval of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6y2emcf from Leagle.com.


WEST TEXAS PAVING: Avalos et al. Seek Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY AVALOS, CHARLES
JOHNSTON, ADRIAN HERNANDEZ LOZANO, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), v. WEST TEXAS PAVING,
INC., DARRELL JARNAGIN, MARSHALL JARNAGIN, and STEVE WITT, Case No.
5:20-cv-00160-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action and
      authorizing notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
      1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b), on behalf of themselves and
      all similarly situated employees:

           "all current and former nonexempt employees of the
           Defendants within three years (the date of the
           Court's order certifying a collection action), who
           worked more than 40 hours in any workweek;"

   2. directing the Defendants to provide contact information
      for all putative class members in electronic format within
      14 days of its order granting this motion; and

   3. tolling the statute of limitations for all putative class
      members for each day that the Defendants fail to timely
      produce putative class members' information.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked,
including proper overtime compensation. Specifically, Defendants
did not compensate employees for time spent attending mandatory
weekly company meetings, plus travel time from the meeting to the
jobsite, amongst other hours worked, the Plaintiffs allege.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action
certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36ybq7L at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
          Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
          Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
          BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1980
          Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
          Telephone: (806) 780-3976
          E-mail: fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com
                  bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
                  mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Court Enters Stipulated ESI Protocol in Nathan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Walter H. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, has approved the Parties'
stipulated order regarding the discovery of electronically stored
information in the case, ERIC NATHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00226-WHR (S.D.
Ohio).

The Parties agree that they will conduct discovery in a cooperative
manner.  They will meet and confer about issues or disputes related
to electronic discovery, in an effort to avoid or resolve disputes
without Court intervention.  They will consider the proportionality
standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) in formulating
their discovery plan.  To further the application of the
proportionality standard in discovery, requests for production of
ESI and related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, and
as specific as practicable.

The Parties will take reasonable and good faith steps to preserve
documents within their possession, custody, or control that they
know, or reasonably should know, are relevant to the claims and
defenses at issue in the action, and will continue to preserve such
information during the pendency of the action.

They agree to exchange a list of custodians likely to have
discoverable information, including job title (or former job
title), a brief description of custodian's responsibilities, and
the employment period for each custodian.  They will meet and
confer in good faith to reach an agreement regarding the custodians
from whom relevant ESI will be collected and searched, and maintain
the right to relevant ESI from custodians who may not originally
have been identified as discovery progresses.

Upon discovery of relevant and non-produced documents due to
private web links (URLs) within the production that have been
unresolved, the Parties have the right to request those documents
be provided, referencing the requested URL.  The time period for
ESI searches will be limited to the time period of July 1, 2013
through the present.

To achieve proportional and cost-effective discovery, the Parties
may agree to limitations on the scope of the search (e.g., time
frames, document types, keywords) to reasonably cull out
non-responsive information.  They may also agree to the use of
predictive coding technology to identify documents responsive and
unresponsive to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests.  

The Parties will negotiate a separate authenticity stipulation for
electronic evidence produced in response to discovery requests.
Neither Party may seek relief from the Court concerning compliance
with the Protocol unless it has conferred with other affected
Parties.  If necessary, the Protocol may be amended by written
agreement of all Parties.

The Party will be responsible for reviewing and producing its own
documents.  However, to facilitate a cooperative, efficient, and
cost-effective discovery process, the Parties agree to meet and
confer about ESI search terms and techniques to demonstrate an
agreeable and efficient process in accordance with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b) to ensure an open, collaborative and
transparent exchange of information.

With respect to privileged or attorney work product information
generated after the filing of the complaint, the Parties are not
required to include any such information in privilege logs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5rb397a from Leagle.com.

                  Plaintiff Johnson Dismissed From Case

In a separate order, Judge Rice granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion to dismiss Plaintiff William Johnson and Count 18 in the
Amended Complaint from the lawsuit without prejudice.  Defendant
Whirlpool Corporation's decision not to oppose the Motion
demonstrates that the dismissal will not cause it prejudice.
Furthermore, dismissal is not based on the merits of Plaintiff
Johnson's remaining claim.

A copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2LuseV8 from Leagle.com.

W.B. Markovits -- bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- Paul M. De Marco --
pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Terence R. Coates -- tcoates@msdlegal.com
-- Markovits, Stock & Demarco, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, and Nathan D.
Prosser -- nprosser@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC,
Edina, MN, and Mark J. Schirmer Straus & Boies, LLP, Memphis, TN,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Andrew M. Unthank -- unthank@wtotrial.com -- Daniel N. Guisbond --
guisbond@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver,
Colorado, and James A. Dyer -- jdyer@ssdlaw.com -- Sebaly Shillito
+ Dyer, Dayton, Ohio, Attorneys for Defendants, KitchenAid, Inc.
and Whirlpool Corporation.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Omnibus Bid to Nix PPP Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class
defendants omnibus motion to dismiss the lawsuit related to CARES
Act's Payroll Protection Program ("PPP"), is pending.

On April 30, 2020, A.D. Sims LLC on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs filed suit in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois against Wintrust
Financial Corporation, Wintrust Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Cross River Bank, and an additional 4,971 named and unnamed
defendants alleging the defendant financial institutions' failure
to pay agent fees on loans issued by them under the federal CARES
Act's PPP.

Plaintiffs allege the collective damages could exceed $3.8 billion
and have asked the court to require the defendants to establish, on
a pro rata basis, a fund which could be used to pay agent fees due.


Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Wintrust Financial Corporation as
a defendant in this suit on June 29, 2020.

Plaintiffs' attorneys filed similar actions across the country and
moved the federal panel for Multi-District Litigation to
consolidate these PPP Agent Fee class actions before a single MDL
judge.

This motion was heard on July 30, 2020 and on August 5, 2020, the
MDL panel denied the plaintiffs' motion.

On September 28, 2020, the class defendants filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss the lawsuit.

Wintrust Bank believes plaintiffs' allegations are legally and
factually meritless and otherwise lacks sufficient information to
estimate the amount of any potential liability.

Wintrust is a financial holding company that provides traditional
community banking services, primarily in the Chicago metropolitan
area and southern Wisconsin, and operates other financing
businesses on a national basis and Canada through several non-bank
subsidiaries. Additionally, Wintrust offers a full array of wealth
management services primarily to customers in the Chicago
metropolitan area and southern Wisconsin.

WONDERY INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wondery, Inc. The
case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wondery,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05851 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020).

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

Wondery -- https://wondery.com/ -- is an American podcast network
launched by Hernan Lopez with backing from 20th Century Fox. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XPO LOGISTICS: Bid to Dismiss Labul Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
overseeing the case, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No.
3:18-cv-02062, has yet to issue a decision on defendants motion to
dismiss.

On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the company and some of its
current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on alleged material misstatements and
omissions in the company's public filings with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint.

The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against the company and a
current executive. Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2020.

Briefing on defendants' motion was completed on June 18, 2020, and
the Court heard oral argument on June 30, 2020.

The Court has not yet issued a decision on defendants’ motion to
dismiss.

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.

XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
intermodal drayage subsidiaries remain parties to litigation
brought by independent contract carriers.

Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are
defendants in several multi-plaintiff and class action litigations
brought by independent contract carriers in California who
contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these cases, the contract carriers, and in some instances the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for
missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement of certain of the
contract carriers' business expenses, and Labor Code penalties
under California's Private Attorneys General Act.

In two cases in which a federal district court in Los Angeles has
certified classes, the company is contesting the certification
rulings.

XPO said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that we may incur as a
result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range
of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.

XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Contract Carriers' Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself from the so-called Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims.

Some of the company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
defendants in several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers in multiple jurisdictions who
contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these cases, the contract carriers, and in certain instances the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case but generally
include claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for
missed meal and rest periods, and reimbursement of the contract
carriers' business expenses.

XPO said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of our accrued
liability that we may incur as a result of these claims given,
among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss
could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts
involved, including on the merits of the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.

XPO LOGISTICS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review in Acosta Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants XPO Logistics Port Services, et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order dated Nov. 16, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Reynaldo Gomez Acosta, et al. v. XPO Logistics
Port Services, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08220-RGK-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on December 4,
2019, Reynaldo Gomez Acosta, Servando Avila Luciano, and Feliz
Nunez Duarte filed a fourth amended class action complaint on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals against the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs' FAC alleges various violations of the
California Labor Code, including misclassification of employees,
unlawful deductions and reimbursable expenses, unpaid minimum
wages, waiting time penalties and failure to pay all wages owed
every pay period.

The Plaintiffs are drivers who contend that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors rather than employees, and
were therefore denied numerous benefits and protections to which
they were entitled under California law.

Defendants XPO Logistics Port Services, et al. seek court review
from the District Court's Nov. 16, 2020 Order denying their motion
for reconsideration of the court's previous order granting in part
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for Class certification.

The District Court denied Defendants' motion because they failed to
establish that reconsideration of the court's order certifying the
Plaintiff's class is warranted as Defendants point no facts that
the court did not consider in deciding Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Reynaldo Gomez Acosta, et al. v.
XPO Logistics Port Services, et al., Case No. 20-80164, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 1,
2020. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents REYNALDO GOMEZ ACOSTA, SERVANDO AVILA
LUCIANO, and FELIZ NUNEZ DUARTE, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

          Alvin Gomez, Esq.
          GOMEZ LAW GROUP
          853 Camino Del Mar
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 552-0000
          E-mail: amglawyers@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE PC
          3560 Fleetwood Drive
          San Bruno, CA 94066
          Telephone: (510) 520-6365  
          E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com

Defendants-Petitioners XPO LOGISTICS PORT SERVICES, LLC; XPO
LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC, DBA XPO Logistics, a Delaware limited
Liability Company; and XPO LOGISTICS, INC. are represented by:

          Sophia Tarazi, Esq.
          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-7836
          E-mail: starazi@omm.com
                  svoelz@omm.com

XTREME MANUFACTURING: Gonzalez Sues Over Machinists' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUDY GONZALEZ, an individual v. XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, a
limited-liability corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-01704-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor
Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the applicable California
Industrial Wage Commission.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated the federal and
state laws due to their failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class
members minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to reimburse for all business expenses, failure to
pay all wages due and owing at end of employment, Failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, as well as engagement in
unlawful business practices.

Mr. Gonzalez was hired by Xtreme as a machinist in or around April
2019.

Xtreme Manufacturing, LLC manufactures industrial trucks and
tractors. The Company offers telehandlers, cubes, EZ loaders,
ramps, and other related products. Xtreme Manufacturing serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  jbaysinger@mayallaw.com

YELP INC: Securities Class Action Ongoing in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit pending before the Northern District of
California.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations on February 9,
2017.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018. On October 22, 2019,
the Court approved a stipulation to certify a class in this action.


The case remains pending.

Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

YERBA MATE: Court Dismisses Section 632 Claim in Troyer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASEY TROYER, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE YERBA MATE CO., LLP and
GUAYAKI SUSTAINABLE RAINFOREST PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
C 20-06065 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 632 claim.

Plaintiff Troyer, a former delivery driver for the Defendants,
brings the putative class action alleging claims under various
sections of California's Labor Code, California's Unfair
Competition Law, and Section 632 of California's Penal Code.  The
Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 632 claim for
failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, to strike portions
of the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed and/or caused to
be employed certain surveillance and recording equipment at the
workplace without the knowledge or consent of employees. All these
devices were maintained and utilized to listen in on and record
employee conversations, including those confidential in nature.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants recorded
the Plaintiff and the Class and the Subclasses by audio and video
surveillance in the warehouse without the knowledge and/or consent
of the employees, and the Defendants thereby recorded conversations
that the Plaintiff and the Class and the Subclasses did not intend
to be overheard by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff asserts they had
a reasonable expectation in privacy in that they did not know and
could not readily determine the conversations were being overheard
or recorded by the Defendants, and the conversations were not held
in the proximity of the Defendants.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants, knowing that the
conduct was unlawful and a violation of the Plaintiff and the
members of the Class' right to privacy and a violation of
California Penal Code Section 630, et seq., did intrude on their
privacy by knowingly and/or negligently and/or intentionally
engaging in the aforementioned recording/eavesdropping activities.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff argues that he has stated
a plausible claim for relief under Section 632.  

Not so, Judge Alsup holds.  As the Defendants contend, the
complaint fails to plead facts plausibly showing that any
confidential communication actually took place.  The complaint does
not allege facts regarding any particular communication or
conversation, let alone facts surrounding the attendant
circumstances of any such communications, which would allow this
order to make any conclusions regarding confidentiality.  As such,
the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts nudging his claim from
conceivable to plausible, Judge Alsup opines.  Given the threshold
deficiency, the Judge does not reach the Defendants' argument
regarding whether or not the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
intentionality under Section 632.

For the foregoing reason, Judge Alsup granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 632 claim.  The Plaintiff
is invited to move for leave to amend his complaint by Dec. 22,
2020 at noon.  He must plead his best case.  His motion should
affirmatively demonstrate how the proposed amended complaint
corrects the deficiencies identified in the Order, as well as any
other deficiencies raised in the Defendants' motion but not
addressed in the Order.  The motion should be accompanied by a
redlined copy of the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 4, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2quutkf from Leagle.com.


YOUNG LIVING: Faces Branchaud Suit Over Mislabeled Health Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON BRANCHAUD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-02450-MJD-LIB (D. Minn., Dec. 3, 2020)
is an action against the Defendant's sale of essential oil products
labeled as therapeutic.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that contrary to the express
representations made on its label, the products, which claim to be
"therapeutic" and provide a number of health related benefits,
provide no healthy or medicinal benefit whatsoever.

As a result of Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct, the
Plaintiff and Members of the classes have been, and continue to be,
harmed by purchasing a product under false pretenses and paying
more for it than they otherwise would have, if they would have
purchased it at all.

Young Living Essential Oils, LC produces essential oils. The
Company offers essential oils, diffusers, blends, and accessories
for home, personal and animal care, and health. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  apeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               - and -

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

                - and -

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com
                  mbarney@sirillp.com


YRC INC: Batta Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVE BATTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YRC INC. DBA YRC FREIGHT, YRC
WORLDWIDE, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
CIV-DS-2022519, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on December 7, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02529 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
breaks and meal break premium wages, failure to provide rest breaks
and rest break premium wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to timely pay final wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate
payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
business practices.

YRC Inc., doing business as YRC Freight, is a transporter of
industrial, commercial, and retail goods, specializing in
less-than-truckload and short-haul shipping solutions, with its
principal place of business located in Overland Park, Kansas.

YRC Worldwide, Inc. is a provider of transportation and global
logistics services based in Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                     
         
         Daniel A. Saunders, Esq.
         Lyn R. Agre, Esq.
         KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 288-7900
         Facsimile: (424) 288-7901
         E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com
                 lagre@kasowitz.com

ZIMMER BIOMET: Settlement in Shah Suit Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
granted final approval of the settlement in Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al. suit.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the company, one
of its officers and two of its now former officers as defendants.


On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of the company's  Board of
Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in
connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock
by certain selling stockholders in 2016.  

On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriters without prejudice.  

On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and
former officers and Board members previously named, certain former
stockholders of the company who sold shares of the company's common
stock in secondary public offerings in 2016.  

The company and its current and former officers and Board members
named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Zimmer Biomet Defendant group". The former stockholders of the
company who sold shares of its common stock in secondary public
offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Private Equity Fund Defendant group".  

The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between June 7,
2016 and November 7, 2016.  

The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or omissions about the company's
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and its ability to continue to accelerate its organic
revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.  

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018.  

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant
group's motion to dismiss in its entirety.  The court granted the
Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group
filed a motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to
certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay
proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was
denied.  

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On
June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its
response.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and other relief.  

Although the company believes this lawsuit is without merit, during
a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and defendants, along with
Zimmer Biomet's insurers, reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the claims for $50.0 million.  

The company made an accrual for the proposed settlement that the
company expects to be fully covered by its insurers. On May 21,
2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  

On or before June 12, 2020, all responsible insurers made their
payments to the qualified settlement fund.  

On September 19, 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was
formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.


ZINO NURSERY: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Landscapers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zino Nursery and Landscaping, Inc., and
Robert Covino, Case No. 7:20-cv-10284 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law arising from the Defendants' failure to keep accurate
time records, pay the Plaintiff regular time and overtime wages by
not counting certain hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, and
provide the Plaintiff wage notices.

Mr. Hernandez was a manual landscaper employed in the Defendants'
business from 2005 until on or around April 2019.

Zino Nursery and Landscaping, Inc. is doing business as
Hardscrabble Farms, a wholesale nursery located in Westchester
County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 218-6190
          Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com

ZIP TOP: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zip Top, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Zip Top, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10189
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020).

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

ZIP TOP -- https://ziptop.com/ -- is a designer and manufacturer of
Zip Top Containers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZOOSHOO INC: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ZOOSHOO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10330-MKV (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, www.zooshoo.com,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers,
it violates 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 website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a women's shoe company that owns and operates
www.zooshoo.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fuchs Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Moses Fuchs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05925 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2020).

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

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. -- http://www.zwickerpc.com/-- is a law
firm that represents credit grantors within the financial services
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 2020. 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 ***