---

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

              Monday, January 4, 2021, Vol. 23, No. -3

                            Headlines

1494 FIRST AVE: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff
1888 MILLS: Underpays Purchasing Agents, Brown Suit Claims
2800 CORP: Vacanti Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
3M CO: City of Fullerton Joins PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit
500.COM LTD: Jun Securities Class Suit Underway

500.COM LTD: Sun Securities Class Action Terminated
7-ELEVEN INC: Moncure Sues Over False Labeling of Blueberry Donuts
A&S GILMER: Faces Gunter Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Texas
ABACUS DATA: $1.95M Settlement in Izor TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
ABC PHONES: $1.4-Mil. Deal in O'Bryant FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod

ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing
ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Data Security Breach Class Suit
ACM RESEARCH: RM LAW Reminds Investors of February 19 Deadline
ADAMS COUNTY, MS:  Conditional Class Cert. Bid in Gonzalez Denied
ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Court Dismisses All Class Claims in Gonzalez Suit

ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court Ongoing
AIR METHODS: Court Certifies Three Overtime Classes in Wagner Suit
ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 12 Deadline
ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
ALLSTATE CORP: Class of Stockholders Certified in Carpenters Suit

AM COMMUNICATIONS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Grant Suit Says
AME SALT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mederos Suit Alleges
AMERICAN BANK: Lautman Files Suit in Pennsylvania
AMERICAN MODULAR: Adjudication Ruling in Rojas-Cifuentes Flipped
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Smith Suit Partly Okayed

AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending
AMICA MUTUAL: Massachusetts Dist. Narrows Claims in Gottlieb Suit
AMISTAD HOMECARE: Fails to Provide Paid Sick Time, Fenwick Says
AMYRIS INC: Paid $125,000 Counsel Fees in Flatischler Suit
ANAPLAN INC: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Grobler Suit

ARK RESTAURANTS: Settlement Reached in Former Tipped Workers' Suit
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Reaches $3.75MM Class Settlement in Chupa Suit
ARVEST CENTRAL: Miller Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Court
ASCENA RETAIL: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Still Stayed
ATLANTA, GA: Stay of Class Cert. Proceedings Expires on Jan. 8

BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Deliverymen Class OK'd, Rule 23 Class Denied
BEAUTY LALA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Salon Staff, Sun Says
BECTON DICKINSON: 1,650 Filter Product Liability Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 525 Women's Health Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 21,370 Hernia Product Liability Claims

BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Underway
BEFORE BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELL COUNTY, TX: Anderson Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
BELLRING BRANDS: Class Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Cota Loses Bid to Strike Answer's Defenses

BIG LOTS: Duranko UTPCPL Class Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
BIG PICTURE: Renewed Class Cert. Bid for Claims v. Martorello Filed
BIOGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 12 Deadline
BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Pending
BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit

BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Employment Class Suit
BLINK CHARGING: Court Consolidates Vittoria and Bush Lawsuit
BMW GROUP: Settles Coolant Pump Class Action for 2007-2019 Vehicles
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Sale of Furniture Warranty "Deceptive," Glover Says
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Wins Dismissal of Cervantes FLSA Class Suit

BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Bail Denials in Savino Won't Be Reconsidered
BROWN STRAUSS: Faces Mayorga Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
BROWNE TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Granted
CANADA: Indian Day School Claims Filing Deadline Set for July 2020

CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Wolf Seeks to Certify Class Action
CASTLEROCK FARMING:  June 15 Case Conference in Morales Suit Set
CBDMD INC: Bid to Nix Davis Purported Class Suit Remains Pending
CBDMD INC: Facing Warshawsky Purported Class Action

CD PROJEKT: Faces Trampe Suit Over Decline in Share Price
CD PROJEKT: Faces Two Class Actions Over Cyberpunk 2077 Video Game
CD PROJEKT: Misleads Investors About Cyberpunk 2077 Game, Suit Says
CD PROJEKT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CD PROJEKT: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 22 Deadline

CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to File Amended Complaint in McGlone Pending
CENTRUS ENERGY: Dismissal of Matthews Class Suit Under Appeal
CENTRUS ENERGY: Facing Walburn Class Action in Ohio
CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CHASE ISSUANCE: Dismissal of Petersen Class Action Under Appeal

CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Rael Settlement
CHLN INC: Faces Seybert Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
CHOCOLATE PIZZA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Court Junks Gottlieb Class Suit

CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Jones Loses Bid for Preliminary Injunction
COFFEE MEETS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTION BUREAU: Weisberger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
COLORADO: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Conditions Amid COVID-19
CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Dismissed

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection
CORE & MAIN: Perez Must File Class Certification Bid by May 3
CORECIVIC INC: Order on Class Notice Plan in Gomez Suit Issued
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Johnson, Chen Consolidated Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action
COTTER CORP: Claim for Contribution v. Mallinkrodt in Banks Severed
CREW INTERNATIONAL: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
CROWN RESORTS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid License Review

DAIMLER AG: $4.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Vancouver Alumni Suit
DERA RESTAURANT: Baudilio FLSA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
DIAMOND NAIL: Lu Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Williams Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending

DOMO INC: Bid to Toss Volonte Securities Class Action Pending
DRS PROCESSING: Holmes TCPA Suit Wins Class Certification
DUKE ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Over Coal Ash Cleanup Settled
DYNCORP INT'L: Del Fierro Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit

EASLEY TRANSPORTATION: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EATALY: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Class Suit in New Jersey Remains Stayed
ELITESINGLES LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMC INSURANCE: Restaurant Seeks Insurance Refund Due to COVID-19

ENCOMPASS SUPPLY: Bishop Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
ENCORE CAPITAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in Williams Class Suit
ESSA BANCORP: Bank Unit Still Faces Suit over RESPA Violations
ESSA BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Sherman Act Claim Pending
EVOQUA WATER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Managers
EXXONMOBIL: N.C. State Student Files DACA Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: IMB Seeks Certification of Facebook Advertisers Class
FACEBOOK INC: Wins Dismissal of Heeger's First Amended Complaint
FAST ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Cahoo Suit

FAST ENTERPRISES: Michigan Court Refuses to Dismiss Cahoo Suit
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York Class Suit
FEDEX CORP: Fails to Protect Workers During Pandemic, Suit Says
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Suit Over Rotary Gear Selectors in Canada

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Chicago Title Pays 65% on Alcohol Escrow Claims
FLUOR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit in Texas Pending
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 26 Deadline
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 26 Deadline
FRONTLINE ASSET: Class Certification Bid Filed in Madorskaya Suit

GARDA CL ATLANTIC: Orlwitch NYLL Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
GENERAL MOTORS: Agrees to Pay $12MM to Settle Vehicle Defects
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Carter Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
GENESIS MOTOR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GMS MINE: Court Affirms Denial of Post-Trial Bids in Bonds Suit

GOLDEN STATE: Appeal From Class Cert. Denial in Harris Suit Nixed
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOOGLE INC: Berger Montague Files Antitrust Class Action Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Settles Google+ Class Action for $7.5 Million
GOOGLE LLC: Sterling International Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme
GORILLA FITNESS: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA
GRASSROOTS CLOTHING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREATER BALTIMORE: Court Revives Injunctive Relief Class in Silver

GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Securities Class Suit in CA Voluntarily Tossed
HAYT HAYT: Barenbaum Suit Parties Seek Class Action Certification
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Appeal in Suit vs. WageWorks Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Suit Denied

HOLISTIC PATIENT: Hunter Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Certifies Truck Drivers Class in Nash Case
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Filing of Consolidated Arguelles Suit OK'd
HU MASTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to C.D. Ca.

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
INFINITY DIAGNOSTIC: Faces Class Action Over Fake COVID-19 Tests
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Underway
INTER CONNECTION: Mota FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
INTER CONNECTION: Mota Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action

INTERFACE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 11 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of January 11 Deadline
INTUIT INC: $40 Million Settlement Awaits Court Approval
IRWIN COUNTY, GA: Immigrant Women Sue Over Unwanted Hysterectomies

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Woods Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
JIM FALK MOTORS: Sedaghatfar Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
JOSEPH ENTERPRISES: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JP MORGAN: Can Compel Arbitration in Bouskos Suit, Court Says
JUUL LABS: Brownsville Area School District Joins Class Action

K12 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
K12 INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of January 19 Deadline
KAISER FOUNDATION: Summary Judgment in I.M. ERISA Suit Affirmed
KILGORE ISD: Denial of Plea to Jurisdiction in Anderson Affirmed
KING'S HAWAIIAN: Faces Galinsky Suit Over Mislabeled Hawaiian Rolls

KML CORP: Bulmer Files Suit in California
KODIAK CAKES: Deadline to File Class Cert. Continued to June 28
KRAFT HEINZ: Class Cert. Bid in Mawby Suit Denied Without Prejudice
KRAFT HEINZ: Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Cheese Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: DeYoung Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas

LABRADOR FRANCHISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
LEIDOS INC: Waters Suit Alleges Racially Motivated Termination
LENDLEASE: Faces Suit Over Poor Housing Conditions on Camp Lejeune
LEVI STRAUSS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Brooks Suit Says
LIFECORE FITNESS: Jaquez Suit Asserts ADA Breach

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Vasaturo Sues Over Defective Ceiling Fans
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
MAPLEBEAR INC: Wins Bid to Compel Individual Arbitration in O'Shea
MARINEPOLIS USA: Coffey Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
MARINEPOLIS USA: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Coffey Suit

MCKESSON CORP: Class Decertification Bid Tossed in True Health Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in True Health Suit
MDL 2862: Bid to Compel to Show Docs in Antitrust Suit Partly OK'd
MDL 2969: 12 COVID Insurance Suits v. Erie Transferred to W.D. Pa.
MDL 2977: 4 Broiler Chicken Grower Suits Transferred to E.D. Okla.

MEDICREDIT INC: Court Certifies Class in Kwasniewski FDCPA Suit
MIB LIMOUSINE: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Personal Drivers
MICHAEL BOUDREAUX: Court Tosses Provisional Class Cert. Bid
MICHIGAN: Rouse, et al. Seek to Certify Class of SMT Prisoners
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Court Dismisses Vieth Inmate Suit v. Dobson

MISEN INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Class Certification Bid
MONTGOMERY, AL: Class Certification Denied in Traffic Fines Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Shafer Seeks to Recover Deferred Wages Under ERISA
NEIMAN MARCUS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Says

NEOVASC INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 5 Deadline
NEOVASC INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 5 Deadline
NEW YORK: Seaport House Challenges State's Response to COVID-19
NORTON HEALTHCARE: 403(b) Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Data Breach Ruling
NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Settles Sewage Lawsuit for $11.5 Million
OASIS LIFESTYLE: Settlement in Warren Class Suit Has Final Approval
ODDITYMALL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

OHIO: Appeals Court Affirms Order Enforcing Settlement in Merrill
OISHII SUSHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villegas Suit Alleges
OLIVER CABELL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
P&B INTERMODAL: Smith Seeks Conditional Cert. of Mechanics Class
PENNSYLVANIA: Rokita Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates

PEOPLEMEDIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PINTEREST INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 22 Deadline
PIT STOP: Civil Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Partly Grants Edwards' Bid for Protective Order
PLAID INC: PNC Financial Sues Over Alleged Trademark Infringement

POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Granted
PORTAGE COUNTY, OH: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of Hughes Class Suit
POST HOLDINGS: Still Defends Egg Products Class Action
POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Potter Suit in Florida Dismissed
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed

PREFFERED POPCORN: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROPHASE LABS: TCPA Class Suit Against TK Supplements Settled
PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit Underway in Massachusetts
PURDUE PHARMA: Cerro Gordo County May Join Opioid Class Action

RB HEALTH: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RCN TELECOM: Class Cert. Bid Terminated Pending Parties' Briefing
RCN TELECOM: Court Temporarily Terminates Bid to Certify Class
REAL SOLUTIONS: Goldsmith Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit

REGIONS BANK: Wins Bid to Dismiss Hodapp for Lack of Jurisdiction
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Backdoor Commission Fees
RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought

SACHS ELECTRIC: Gets Partial Summary Judgment in Sachs Labor Suit
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Brown, et al. Seek Class Certification
SALT CREEK: Opt-in Plaintiffs Dismissed from Bock FLSA-NMMWA Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wins Dismissal of Galaxy Marketing Suit
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Refuses to Toss Lantus DP Antitrust Suit

SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Zhang Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
SERENA WHOLESALE: Faces Ahmed Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SETERUS INC: Barilla Suit Claims Dismissed Over Settlement Talks
SEVENTY SEVEN: Myers Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants

SEVENTY-SEVEN ENERGY: Joining of Snider & Myers ERISA Suits Denied
SHEEHANS OFFICE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
SKY TRANSPORTATION: Cooper Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid OT Premiums
SNAP INC: Kyros Law Files Legal Claims on Behalf of Investors
SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Fraud Claims

SOLDIERS' HOME: More Families Intend to Join COVID Class Action
SOUTH CAROLINA: Assa'ad-Faltas Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SOUTH KOREA: Private Cram School Owners Mull Class Action
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Spectrum Legacy
SPLUNK INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline

ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions
SUNNY ISLES: Puch Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
SUPERIOR CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
SURF CITY: Faces Huleis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
SWEET STREET: Monegro Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users

SYMETRA ASSIGNED: White Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
SYNACOR INC: Announces Dismissal of 2018 Class Action
SYNACOR INC: Awaits 2nd Cir.'s Mandate to Close 2018 Class Action
TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: March 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TIGER BRANDS: Sale of Meats Division Won't Impact Class Action

TOPDOGHR INC: Gray Class Suit Dismissed in Light of Settlement
TRANSUNION: Baker Sterchi Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Underway in Oklahoma
TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit

TYSON FOODS: Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits Underway
TYSON FOODS: Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
UNILEVER US INC: Lipetz Sues Over Mislabeled Shampoo Products
UNITED PARCEL: Sims Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
UNITED SERVICES: Allen Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing Upheld

UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Suit v. DHS   
UNITED STATES: Class of Asylum Applicants Certified in JOP v. DHS
UNITED STATES: Cunningham Files Suit in Federal Claims Court
UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Detainees Win Class Action Against ICE
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Caldwell ERISA Health Plan Suit Wins Class Status

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Gynecologist Sexual Abuse Suit
US GOLF ASSOCIATION: Winegard Alleges Violation under ADA
US JOINER: Vangel FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Lenzini Files Suit under FDCPA
VALLEY GYM: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

VAN BUREN, MH: Wayside Church Seeks Expedited Class Certification
VICTOR HILL: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Jones Suit
VOLITION BEAUTY: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
WALGREEN CO: Omits Gelatin on Multivitamins' Label, Kanwar Alleges
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court OK's Bid to Stay Russell Class Action

WEBMD LLC: Mouseflow May Respond to Narvaez Complaint by Feb. 4
WELD POWER: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Improper Wage Statements
WELLS FARGO: Ernst Valery Files Race Bias Class Action Lawsuit
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Jail Class in Baxley Inmate Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: WVDCR Dismissed from Baxley Inmates Class Suit

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Hotel Quarantine System
WILLIAM GRANT: Alonzo Sues Over Rum's "18" and "Slow Aged" Labels
WISCONSIN: Disclosure of Heredia Class' Confidential Info Allowed
WUSA-TV INC: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
YUBA COUNTY, CA: Immigrant Advocates Warn on Jail COVID Outbreak

ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims
[*] Class Actions, Divestments Dominate Australian Banks in 2020
[*] Corporations to Spend $2.73 Billion on Class Actions in 2020
[*] Law Firms Expect Rise in COVID-Related Litigation in 2021

                            *********

1494 FIRST AVE: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUSEBIO RAMIREZ; IGNACIO GALENO; JOSE BASURTO-VASQUEZ; JORGE LUIS
VILLA MEDEL; JOSE EDWIN MENDEZ; BERNARDO CASTILLO ZAMORA; JAIME
AGUDO; and FRANCISCO MERINO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1494 FIRST AVE RESTAURANT
CORP d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA; FAMOUS ITALIAN VILLAGE INC. d/b/a
ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA; JGL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE
PIZZA; and JOSEPH NOTARO; and JOSE LEON, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10949 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 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 restaurant
staff.

1494 First Ave Restaurant Corp d/b/a Italian Village Pizza is
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


1888 MILLS: Underpays Purchasing Agents, Brown Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA BROWN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated to her, Plaintiff v. 1888 MILLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00224-TCB (N.D. Ga., December 17, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful scheme that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Over the past 3 years, the Plaintiff has been a purchasing agent
for the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
work more than 40 hours in certain workweeks, but the Defendant
compensated him by the hour at various rates. Although the
Defendant use a time-keeping system, it failed to credit the
Plaintiff with the proper number of hours worked because it rounded
the Plaintiff's clock-in time up to the nearest 15-minute interval,
and rounded her clock-out time down to the nearest 15-minute
interval. As a result, the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of
overtime compensation at one and one-half times her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

1888 Mills, LLC manufactures and sells fabric textiles such as
towels, bedding, and curtains. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. McCabe, Esq.
          THE McCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
          3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Tel: (404) 250-3233
          Fax: (404) 400-1724
          E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com


2800 CORP: Vacanti Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Vacanti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 2800 CORPORATION d/b/a BOTTOMS UP LOUNGE and MIGUEL
"MIKE" RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00038-CRW-CFB (S.D. Iowa, Dec. 30,
2020), is brought for unpaid minimum wages, unlawful kick-backs,
liquidated damages, and for other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law.

In this action, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have
misclassified exotic dancers working at Bottoms Up as independent
contractors rather than employees, have paid dancers less than the
minimum wage, and have taken unlawful fees and tip-outs from the
dancers' pay in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants have allegedly exercised extensive control over the
manner in which exotic dancers at Bottoms Up perform their jobs and
conduct themselves while on Bottoms Up premises, including their
appearance, how much they can receive for private dances and
sessions, and how they can interact with customers. The Defendants
required exotic dancers to work a set schedule of at least three
nights per week, which were sometimes dictated by Defendant
Ramirez. The Defendants fined dancers between $35 and $45 if they
missed a shift or arrived late to their scheduled shifts. The
shifts started at 7 PM and ended at 2 AM. At times, the Plaintiff
worked seven shifts a week.

The Defendants set the prices for the dances Plaintiff and other
dancers performed –- each dance was $20, and the dancers were
allowed to keep $5. The Plaintiff and other dancers did not receive
any compensation from Defendants; their only compensation was in
the form of fees paid by customers for dances. Even if the payments
from customers were deemed to be the dancers' "wages," the dancers
have not been permitted to retain the full amount of these wages,
since Defendants has subtracted various fines, charges, and fees
from these amounts (as well as requiring the dancers to share them
with other employees), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked as an exotic dancer at Bottoms Up between
2007 and 2020.

Bottoms Up is in the business of providing adult entertainment to
its patrons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nate Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON P.L.C.
          P.O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
          Phone: (319) 363-5209
          Fax: (319) 363-6664
          Email: nate@rushnicholson.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com


3M CO: City of Fullerton Joins PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse La Tour, writing for Fullerton Observer, reports that the
city of Fullerton has joined a large Orange County lawsuit against
the 3M Company, DuPont, and others. The suit was brought by the
Orange County Water District (OCWD) and several Orange County
cities and water districts alleging that these companies are
responsible for water contamination from PFAS (see below) in the
region's groundwater and water systems. The lawsuit was filed
December 1, 2020 by SL Environmental Law Group.

OCWD manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin which provides a
water supply for more than 2.5 million residents throughout Orange
County.

The lawsuit seeks damages and compensation "to address widespread
contamination of surface water and groundwater within the
Basin…to investigate, monitor, assess, evaluate, remediate,
abate, or contain contamination . . . and to assure that the
responsible parties - rather than the OCWD, [cities], or taxpayers
- bear the cost of responding to and remediating contamination."

One or more of Fullerton's water wells have exceeded regulatory
limits for PFAS.

What Are PFAS?

Polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS are a family of manmade chemical
compounds that include PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA
(perfluorooctane acid) that have been widely used for decades in
industry and in the production of thousands of common household and
commercial products, most notably Teflon, but many others.

These chemical compounds are known to have characteristics that
cause extensive and persistent environmental contamination. They
resist natural degradation and are difficult and costly to remove
from soil and water.

Exposure to certain PFAS has been associated with several negative
health outcomes in both humans and animals, including the
following:

• Altered growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older
children

• Lowering a woman's chance of getting pregnant

• Interference with the body's natural hormones

• Increased cholesterol levels

• Modulation of the immune system

• Increased risk of certain cancers

• Increased risk of ulcerative colitis

The Defendants

The main defendants in the lawsuit are the 3M Company, DuPont (and
its various incarnations and spinoff companies including Corteva
and Chemours), and DECRA Roofing Systems (located in Corona).

3M has operated a manufacturing facility in Corona since the 1940s
that, according to the lawsuit, "is a source of PFAS that has
impacted the Santa Ana River and the Basin." At this facility, 3M
manufactured roofing granules containing PFAS that they then sold
to DECRA. In 2011 alone, more than 414 million pounds of these
materials were manufactured by 3M at the Corona site.

"Runoff from DECRA's Roofing Products contain PFAS and the disposal
of these products has contributed to the contamination in
Plaintiffs' drinking water supplies," the lawsuit alleges.

As a direct result of 3M and DECRA's industrial practices, the
lawsuit claims:

   * Water from the Santa Ana River used for groundwater recharge
has become contaminated with PFAS.

   * Other surface water and groundwater resources within the
Orange County Basin have become contaminated with PFAS

   * Cities' drinking water supply wells have become contaminated
with PFAS.

The lawsuit does not name any specific local DuPont manufacturing
facilities, but instead cites the company's decades-long efforts to
market and sell products containing PFAS (including in California),
to hide these products' toxicity from the public, and then to
shield itself from liability through complex business
reorganizations.

3M and DuPont Have Known PFAS Were Toxic for Decades

The issue of PFAS contamination across the United States has gained
increasing public awareness in recent years, with the release of
two feature films on the topic -- a 2018 documentary called The
Devil We Know, and a 2019 fact-based drama called Dark Waters
(starring Mark Ruffalo), which follows the lawyer Robert Bilott's
efforts to expose PFAS contamination and obtain compensation for
those impacted by it.

The lawsuit alleges that both DuPont and 3M have known about the
dangers of PFAS for decades and have sought to hide these dangers
from the public in an effort to continue manufacturing products
that were highly profitable.

According to the lawsuit:

   * In the 1950s, based on its own internal studies, 3M concluded
that PFAS are "toxic."

   * 3M knew as early as 1960 that chemical wastes from its PFAS
manufacturing facilities that were dumped to landfills would leach
into groundwater and enter the environment.

   * In 1975, 3M found there was a "universal presence" of at least
one form of PFAS in blood serum samples taken from people across
the United States.

   * 3M began monitoring the blood of its employees for PFAS as
early as 1976 because the company was concerned about health
effects of the chemicals.

   * Studies by 3M in 1978 showed that PFAS are toxic to monkeys.

   * 3M resisted calls from its own ecotoxicologists going back to
1979 to perform an ecological risk assessment on PFAS and similar
chemicals. 3M's own ecotoxicologists continued raising concerns to
3M until at least 1999.

   * DuPont company scientists issued internal warnings about the
toxicity associated with their PFOA products as early as 1961.

   * By 1979, DuPont had data indicating that its workers exposed
to PFOA had a significantly higher incidence of health issues than
did unexposed workers. DuPont did not report this data or the
results of its worker health analysis to any government agency or
community.

   * In 1984, after obtaining data on environmental contamination
near its Washington Works plant in West Virginia in 1984, DuPont
held a meeting at its corporate headquarters to discuss health and
environmental issues related to PFOA. Employees who attended the
1984 meeting discussed available technologies that were capable of
controlling and reducing PFOA releases from its manufacturing
facilities, as well as potential replacement materials. DuPont
chose not to use either available technologies or replacement
materials, despite knowing of PFOA's toxicity.

"Command the Science"

According to the lawsuit, "3M recognized that if the public and
governmental regulators became aware of the risks associated with
PFAS, 3M would be forced to halt its manufacturing of PFAS and
PFAS-derived products that would result in the loss of hundreds of
millions of dollars in annual revenue.

This potential profit loss "drove 3M to engage in a campaign to
influence the science relating to PFAS and, according to internal
3M documents, to conduct scientific 'research' that it could use to
mount "defensive barriers to litigation."

A key priority of an internal 3M committee was to "command the
science" concerning "exposure, analytical, fate, effects, human
health, and ecological" risks posed by PFAS and for 3M to provide
"selective funding of outside research through 3M 'grant' money,"
the lawsuit says.

"In exchange for providing grant money to friendly researchers, 3M
obtained the right to review and edit draft scientific papers
regarding PFAS and sought control over when and whether the results
of scientific studies were published at all," the suit alleges.

The Lawsuits Begin

In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed an action
against DuPont based on its failure to disclose toxicity and
exposure information for PFOA, in violation of federal
environmental laws. In 2005, DuPont settled the action by agreeing
to pay $10.25 million in a civil administrative penalty and to
complete $6.25 million in supplemental environmental projects. The
company also promised to phase out production and use of PFOA by
2015.

In 2005, DuPont settled a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
approximately 70,000 individuals with PFOA-contaminated drinking
water supplies in Ohio and West Virginia for benefits valued at
over $300 million.

Under the terms of this settlement, DuPont agreed to fund a panel
of independent scientists to conduct whatever studies were
necessary to confirm which diseases were linked to PFOA exposure,
to remove PFOA from the contaminated water sources, and to pay up
to $235 million for medical monitoring of those exposed.

After seven years of study and analyses, the Science Panel
confirmed that PFOA exposures were linked to several serious human
diseases, including two types of cancer.

More than 3,500 personal injury claims were filed against DuPont in
Ohio and West Virginia following the findings of the Science
Panel.

In 2017, DuPont and its spinoff company Chemours (below) agreed to
pay $670.7 million to resolve the approximately 3,500 then-pending
cases.

A Complex Corporate Scheme to Shield Liability

As its legal liability became a bigger threat to its financial
situation, DuPont engaged in a complex business restructuring
strategy starting around 2014, to shield itself from having to pay,
including the "spinoff" of some of its chemicals business into a
new company called Chemours. These alleged actions, which the
lawsuit calls "fraudulent," get a bit complex (probably
intentionally so).

The lawsuit uses the term "Old DuPont" to describe the company
prior to these reorganizations.

"It is apparent that Old DuPont's goal with respect to the Chemours
Spinoff was to segregate a large portion of Old DuPont's legacy
environmental liabilities, including liabilities related to its
PFAS chemicals and products, and in so doing, shield Old DuPont's
assets from any financial exposure associated therewith," the
lawsuit states.

Other steps in this restructuring included a merger with the Dow
Chemical Company, the transfer of its historic assets to other
entities, including defendant DuPont de Nemours Inc, and the
spin-off of DuPont to a new parent company named Corteva, Inc.

"Old DuPont also sought to hide critical details of these
transactions by burying them in non-public schedules to agreements
in an attempt to keep the parties such as Plaintiffs in the dark,"
the lawsuit says. "As a result, Old DuPont has shed more than $20
billion in tangible assets through restructuring efforts and
attempted to put those assets outside of Plaintiffs' reach.

After the Chemours Spinoff, "Old DuPont took the untenable position
that it was somehow no longer responsible for the widespread PFAS
contamination that it had caused over several decades," the lawsuit
says.

Claims for Damages and the Cost of Cleanup

The OCWD lawsuit, of which Fullerton is now a plaintiff, brings
several claims for damages against the defendants, and asks that
the responsible companies pay for remediation and cleanup to
protect our local water supplies.

Even though they have not yet won the lawsuit, OCWD has taken
costly steps to protect and clean up wells and groundwater,
including investigation, sampling, remediation, treatment system
design, acquisition, installation, operations and maintenance of
its water systems.

The lawsuit states that the responsible companies' negligent and
harmful conduct "was performed to promote sales…and maximize
profits, in conscious disregard of the probable dangerous
consequences of that conduct and its foreseeable impact upon
health, property and the environment, including the surface water,
groundwater, replenishment water, drinking water supply and the
Plaintiffs' contaminated wells." [GN]


500.COM LTD: Jun Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
500.com Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit initiated by Yang Jun.

On February 13, 2020, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against 500.com Limited and certain of its current and former
officers by Yang Jun, a shareholder of the Company, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of our ADSs during the proposed class period
from April 27, 2018 to December 31, 2019.

On March 26, 2020, the Court appointed Company shareholder Brian
Xuan as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In June 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In
November 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.


The claims raised in the first amended complaint do not differ
materially from those raised in the original complaint. The second
amended complaint raises the same claims as the first amended
complaint, but alleges additional facts in support of those claims.


The Company intends to move to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Such motion is due in December 2020. Lead plaintiff's
opposition to such motion to dismiss is due in January 2021. The
Company's reply in support of its motion is due in February 2021.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
made materially misleading statements and omissions regarding its
compliance with applicable anti-corruption laws and regulations.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, against the Defendants.

500.com said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of
the claims in this lawsuit and we are prepared to vigorously defend
against its allegations. There can be no assurance, however, that
we will be successful. As of the date of this annual report, this
lawsuit is in its preliminary stages; at present, we cannot
reasonably assess the likelihood of any unfavorable outcome, nor
can we reasonably estimate the amount, or range, of potential
losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. Accordingly, we have not
recorded any liabilities in respect of this lawsuit."

500.com Ltd. provides online gambling services. The Company deals
in sales of internet lottery tickets and offers various forms of
services such as online platform, mobile client, and physical
terminals. 500.com serves customers in the United States.

500.COM LTD: Sun Securities Class Action Terminated
---------------------------------------------------
500.com Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the securities class
action suit initiated by Fengjun Sun, has been terminated.

On January 15, 2020, a securities class action lawsuit, making
allegations virtually identical with the abovementioned lawsuit
filed on February 13, 2020, was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey by Fengjun Sun.

On March 23, 2020, Fengjun Sun noticed his voluntary dismissal of
this case, and on April 8, 2020, the clerk of the Court was ordered
to close the case file.

As such, this case is now terminated.

500.com Ltd. provides online gambling services. The Company deals
in sales of internet lottery tickets and offers various forms of
services such as online platform, mobile client, and physical
terminals. 500.com serves customers in the United States.


7-ELEVEN INC: Moncure Sues Over False Labeling of Blueberry Donuts
------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY MONCURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10935 (S.D.N.Y., December 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
misleading labeling and advertising of blueberry donut holes,
similar to munchkins, under the 7-Select brand. The Defendant's
product prominently states "Blueberry" with a blue color pattern,
but in reality, it only contains blueberry bits, which also
contains natural flavor. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, seek
products with blueberries for reasons including their numerous
health benefits. The representation of the product's flavor as
"Blueberry," without qualification, gives consumers the impression
that the flavor is only from the characterizing ingredient of
blueberries and that the product contains enough blueberries to
sufficiently characterize the food. The value of the product that
the Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as
represented by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and Class members
known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would
have paid less for them.

7-Eleven, Inc. is an international chain of convenience stores,
with a principal place of business in Irving, Texas. [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

A&S GILMER: Faces Gunter Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER GUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A&S GILMER, LLC., and ANWAR BAWANI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00399-JRG (E.D. Tex., December 28,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to properly
classify them as non-exempt employees, and failure to record
employees' worked hours.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants at a facility in
Gilmer, Texas on or about August 12, 2019 until her promotion as a
manager on or about January 1, 2020.

A&S Gilmer, LLC, doing business as Gilmer Foodmart, is a grocery
store owner and operator located in Gilmer, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
         5380 Old Bullard Road
         Suite 600, #363
         Tyler, Texas 75703
         Telephone: (903) 593-5588

ABACUS DATA: $1.95M Settlement in Izor TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PAUL IZOR v. ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 19-cv-01057-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting motion for
final approval of class action settlement, and granting in part and
denying in part motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award.

District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., approves the settlement
amount of $195 million; settlement administrator costs in the
amount not to exceed $105,000; attorneys' fees in the amount of
$585,000 and costs in the amount of $15,169.76. The Court further
awards named Plaintiff an incentive award of $2,500.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement. They are further directed to
file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within
21 days from the date of the Order

Plaintiff Izor filed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action against Defendant Abacus on behalf of himself and two
putative classes of others similarly situated.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, fully executed on
June 17, 2020. They filed an amendment to the settlement agreement
on Aug. 6, 2020.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All regular users or subscribers of numbers assigned to a
     paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized
     mobile radio service, radio common carrier service, or any
     service for which the called party is charged for the call
     to which a text message was transmitted by Trumpia on behalf
     of the Defendant within four years of February 26, 2019.

The Defendant will make a $1.95 million non-reversionary Settlement
Fund, which will include payments to the Class Members,
administrative expenses (estimated between $72,496 and $103,996),
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees (not to exceed $650,000) and costs (not
to exceed $25,000), and any incentive payment for the Lead
Plaintiff (not to exceed $5,000).

In addition to the Settlement Fund, the Defendant agreed that it
will implement policies and procedures to prevent against the
sending of text messages without prior express consent to numbers
assigned to wireless carriers using an automated telephone dialing
system, and will not send any telemarketing text messages to
promote its products and/or services in violation of the TCPA.

The deadline for a class member to submit a request for exclusion
or to object to the Settlement was 60 days after the initial
mailing and electronic posting date of the notice.

Each Class Member is entitled to submit one claim through the
proposed claim form. Each valid claim form submitted before the
claims deadline will receive a pro rata share of the Settlement
Fund within 60 days of the date any judgment becomes "Final."

The Class counsel seeks $650,000 in fees, or one third of the
settlement amount. The Court notes that the request well exceeds
the benchmark for a reasonable fee award under the
percentage-of-recovery method and is higher than the "usual range"
of 20-30%. To further justify the upward departure, the Class
Counsel contends that its lodestar supports the reasonableness of
its request.

The Court recognizes that the Class Counsel obtained significant
results for the class, where each claimant will likely receive a
pro rata distribution of nearly $400.  It finds that these factors
warrant an upward departure from the 25% benchmark. However, the
percentage requested is higher than other awards granted in
comparable cases, Judge Gilliam opines, citing Gergetz v. Telenav,
Inc., No. 16-cv-04261-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2018). Accordingly,
under the percentage-of-fund-method, the Court grants attorneys'
fees of 30% of the total settlement amount, or $585,000.

The Court is satisfied that costs were reasonably incurred and
grants the motion for costs in the amount of $15,169.76.

Finally, though the Plaintiff made an important contribution to the
case, the Court finds that a $5,000 award is substantially
disproportionate to the Class members' anticipated $400 recovery.
It finds an award of $2,500 to be adequate and appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y962f6zx from Leagle.com.


ABC PHONES: $1.4-Mil. Deal in O'Bryant FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB O'BRYANT and MARK BRANDON BAKER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABC
PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a VICTRA, f/d/b/a A WIRELESS,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02378-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Samuel
H. Mays, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, Western Division:

   a. granted the Joint Motion for Settlement Approval--
      Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement brought by Named
      Plaintiffs O'Bryant and Baker and Defendant VICTRA;

   b. denied as moot the Motion to Intervene brought by Ron
      Hardney, Manuel Panngasiri, and Michelle Salway, along with
      76 other opt-in plaintiffs in the Hardney action--Hardney,
      et al. v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc.,
      No. 20-cv-0076; and

   c. denied the Motion to Intervene brought by Putative
      Intervenors Priscilla Solorio and Mariano Diaz, named
      plaintiffs in Solorio, et al. v. ABC Phones of North
      Carolina, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01051-NONE-JLT.

The Joint Motion is accompanied by an Amended Settlement Agreement.
The settlement amount payable to the opt-in Plaintiffs is
$1,400,576.40, which does not include the Service Awards to the
Named Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the
Administration Fee (payable to the Settlement Administrator).

The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The dispute arises from VICTRA's alleged failure to pay
overtime compensation to certain employees.

On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the action.
In their Initial Complaint, the Plaintiffs, VICTRA retail sales
associates employed on an hourly-plus-commission basis, alleged
that VICTRA employed a uniform payment structure for its retail
sales associates that violated the FLSA.  They alleged that
VICTRA's payment scheme calculated the amount of overtime due by
using the employees' base hourly rate rather than the regular rate
as defined by 29 C.F.R. Section 778.114.

The collective action described in the Initial Complaint was: All
current and former retail employees of ABC Phones of North
Carolina, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries doing business as VICTRA,
who were paid an hourly wage plus commission, and who were employed
in the United States at any time during the applicable limitations
period covered by this Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years
for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations)
up to and including the date of final judgment in the matter, and
who are Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to the action pursuant
to the FLSA.

On Sept. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC").  In the FAC, the Plaintiffs changed Baker's job
description from "retail sales person" to "store manager."

The FAC stated a separate retail "manager" subcollective, in
addition to the Initial Complaint's retail "employee" collective:
All current and former retail managers of ABC Phones of North
Carolina, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries doing business as VICTRA,
who were paid an hourly wage plus commission, and who were employed
in the United States at any time during the applicable limitations
period covered by the Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years
for FLSA violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations)
up to and including the date of final judgment in the matter, and
who are Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to the action pursuant
to the FLSA.  The FAC alleged an additional violation of the FLSA.

On Aug. 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"), which is the operative complaint.  The SAC adds an
allegation that the off-the-clock claims apply to the non-manager
sub-class as well as the manager sub-class.   Also on Aug. 11,
2020, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Conditional
Certification of the Collective Encompassed by the Parties'
Settlement.

That motion defined the collective as: Current and former
non-exempt employees of VICTRA who worked as store managers and
non-manager retail employees who worked in any VICTRA-owned store
in the United States at any time between June 10, 2016, and Aug. 7,
2020.  The parties asked the Court to conditionally certify the
defined collective.  The Court granted that relief on Oct. 15,
2020.

On Aug. 14, 2020, the parties submitted the Joint Motion.  They
seek preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of the
opt-in procedures.  The parties represent that, at a mediation on
Aug. 21, 2019, they were able to settle the managers' claims.
The Hardney Motion was filed on Aug. 18, 2020.  The counsel for the
Hardney Action advised the Court on Dec. 3, 2020, that the Hardney
Motion was moot.

The Motion to Intervene was filed on Sept. 9, 2020.  It argues that
settlement of the action will impede the Putative Intervenors'
Solorio Action.  The Motion to Intervene represents that the
Putative Intervenors seek to oppose settlement of the action and to
have information about the Solorio Action included in any notice to
the potential opt-in Plaintiffs in the action.  VICTRA and the
Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to Intervene on Sept. 23, 2020.

Judge Mays (i) denied as moot the Hardney Motion, (ii) denied the
Motion to Intervene, and (iii) granted the Joint Motion.  The
Amended Settlement is conditionally approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the members of the FLSA Collective, subject to
further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing.

The parties are directed to proceed with notice and opt-in as
outlined in the Amended Settlement Agreement, with the change made
by the Court to the Notice Form.

Within 14 days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,
VICTRA will provide the Settlement Administrator with a chart
listing the names, employee identification numbers, last known
addresses, email addresses, Social Security numbers, and any other
pertinent information necessary to the administration process as
that information exists in the business records of VICTRA of the
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

Within seven days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,
the parties will provide calculations to the Settlement
Administrator, consistent with the calculation formula set forth in
the Amended Settlement Agreement showing the approximate amount for
each Potential Opt-In Plaintiff's Individual Settlement Payment.

Within 14 days of the receipt of the chart with Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs' information, the Settlement Administrator will
distribute the Notices by mail.

Each Potential Opt-In Plaintiff will have 90 days following the
mailing of the Notice to complete and submit the Consent Form,
electronically or by mail.  In completing and signing the Consent
Form, each Opt-In Plaintiff will attest that he or she believes "at
some point during the time period of June 10, 2016, through Aug. 7,
2020, and in the course of my employment for VICTRA, (1) there were
one or more workweeks when he/she worked overtime and earned
commission payments and/or nondiscretionary bonuses; and/or (2)
he/she worked overtime hours off-the-clock for which he/she
believes he/she was not fully compensated.  If any Potential Opt-In
Plaintiff disputes his or her allocation or attempts to qualify,
condition, or limit his or her acceptance of the terms of the
Amended Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will promptly
notify VICTRA and the Named Plaintiff's counsel by email.

Within 60 days of the Opt-In Deadline, all Consent Forms will be
filed with the Court.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 1, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
The Court reserves the ability to adjourn and reschedule the Final
Approval Hearing without further written notice to the Collective.

Any member of the FLSA Collective who has opted-in may appear at
the Final Approval Hearing; provided, however, that no member of
the FLSA Collective will be heard in opposition of the Amended
Settlement unless, no later than 21 days before the Final Approval
Hearing, such member of the FLSA Collective has (a) filed with the
Clerk of the Court a written objection; and (b) served a copy of
his or her written objection on the Settlement Administrator at the
address provided in the Notices.

No later than seven calendar days before the Final Approval
Hearing, the Counsel will cause to be filed with the Court a
response to any timely filed objections to the Amended Settlement.

The Counsel will submit its filings in support of final approval of
the Amended Settlement Agreement and the requests for awards of
attorney's fees, service payments, and other costs no later than 20
days before the Final Approval Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9uz26xn from Leagle.com.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Action in California Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the consolidated
cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco the "Bucio case," is still ongoing.

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges the company failed to provide legally required
meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal
periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors
for travel expenses.

There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May
11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The
trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in
the appeal.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate
District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11,
2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying
class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a
meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class.
The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002, and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged
previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites.

On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery
related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013,
would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing
prior to April 30, 2013, had been tried. The parties engaged in
mediation in July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the
case.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial
court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to
maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest
breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned
to a new judge on January 6, 2020.

ABM filed motions for summary adjudication as to certain of
Plaintiffs' class claims, and the trial court denied those motions
in November 2020. Plaintiffs filed motions for summary adjudication
and/or summary judgment on some claims in December 2020, and a
hearing on these motions is currently set for February 24, 2021.
The trial court has ordered that the parties complete another
mediation by February 19, 2021.

The parties are currently engaged in substantive briefing and will
begin expert discovery. The class action claims accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 are set for trial on July 12, 2021.

Prior to trial, the company will have the opportunity to, among
other things, seek decertification of the classes, seek
interlocutory appellate review, or engage in further mediation if
we deem such actions appropriate. They may engage in one or more
such activities before the trial.

ABM Industries "While we believe we have valid defenses to the
claims in this proceeding and will continue to vigorously defend
ourselves, there can be no assurance that the final resolution of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows."

ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The
Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial,
lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services
to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across
North America. The company is based in New York, New York.


ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Data Security Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of
Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident
involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of
Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.

On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaint alleges negligence by us, and seeks monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a
data security incident involving unauthorized access to the
reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which
was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.

Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood. On October 27, 2020, the court
issued an order largely denying Accenture's motion to dismiss the
claims against it.

Accenture said, "We continue to believe the lawsuit is without
merit and we will vigorously defend it. At present, we do not
believe any losses from this matter will have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial condition."

Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.

ACM RESEARCH: RM LAW Reminds Investors of February 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on Dec. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased ACM
Research, Inc. ("ACM Research" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR)
securities during the period from March 6, 2019 through October 7,
2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").

ACM Research shareholders may, no later than February 19, 2021 move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of ACM Research and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click https://www.rmclasslaw.com/case/acmr.

According to the complaint, throughout the relevant period,
defendants touted the Company's financial profitability and growth
in sales. However, these statements were false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose that the Company had diverted
revenues and profits to undisclosed related parties and had
materially overstated its revenues and profits.

On October 8, 2020, analyst J Capital Research published a report
concluding that ACM Research "is a fraud, over-reporting both
revenue and profit." The report concluded that ACM Research's
revenue was overstated by 15-20% and claimed to have "evidence that
undisclosed related parties are diverting revenue and profit from
the company." On this news, ACM Research's stock declined $1.09 per
share on October 8, 2020.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than February
19, 2021 request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website by clicking here.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.

CONTACT:

RM LAW, P.C.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
484-324-6800
844-291-9299
rm@maniskas.com [GN]


ADAMS COUNTY, MS:  Conditional Class Cert. Bid in Gonzalez Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Case LOUIS GONZALEZ, also
known as Carlos Ramos Sanchez, v. WARDEN SHAWN R. GILLIS, ET AL.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00158-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge David
Bramlette entered an order:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's Report
      and Recommendation (R&R) as the findings and conclusions
      of the Court;

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction;

   3. dismissing all class allegations and directing the
      Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days from
      the entry of this order;

   4. denying the motion to seek leave to file an untimely
      response in opposition to Magistrate Judge Parker's R&R;
      and

   5. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification.

According to Judge Bramlette, the Court agrees with Mag. Judge
Parker's finding that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements set out in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and that the class action claims should be dismissed.

Moreover, the Plaintiff May amend his complaint to include only
claims he asserts against Defendants on his own behalf, rules the
Court.

Shawn R. Gillis, is the Warden of Adams County Correctional Center.
Adams County Correctional Center is a medium security prison for
men located in unincorporated Adams County, Mississippi, near
Natchez. It is owned and operated by CoreCivic under contract with
the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nREn4D at no extra charge.[CC]

ADAMS COUNTY, MS: Court Dismisses All Class Claims in Gonzalez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS GONZALEZ, A#209-413-252 also known as Carlos
Ramos Sanchez, Plaintiff v. WARDEN SHAWN R. GILLIS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-CV-158-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.), Judge David
Bramlette of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi denied the Plaintiff's:

     (i) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction;

    (ii) Motion to Seek Leave to File an Untimely Response in
         Opposition to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's
         Report and Recommendation ("R&R"); and

   (iii) Motion for Conditional Class Certification.

The matter is before the Court on Judge Parker's R&R, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Seek Leave to File an Untimely Response in
Opposition to Magistrate Judge Parker's R&R, and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification.  Having carefully
reviewed the same, Judge Bramlette finds that Magistrate Judge
Parker's R&R is well taken and will be adopted as the findings and
conclusions of the Court.  Magistrate Judge Parker finds that all
class allegations should be dismissed, and the Plaintiff should be
directed to amend his complaint to include only claims that he
asserts against the Defendants on his own behalf.  He further finds
that the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction should be
denied.

On Dec. 15, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Seek Leave.  The
Judge finds that the Motion to Seek Leave merely reasserts the
Plaintiff's request in his initial complaint and the Plaintiff's
Motion to Appoint Counsel.  Judge Parker denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Appoint Counsel because the Plaintiff has not shown the
presence of 'exceptional circumstances.' Judge Bramlette will not
allow the Plaintiff additional time to restate claims that have
previously been decided by Judge Parker.

Additionally, the Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Conditional
Class Certification.  Because Judge Bramlette agrees with Judge
Parker's finding that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and that
the class action claims should be dismissed, the Motion is now
moot.

Accordingly, Judge Bramlette adopted Magistrate Judge Parker's R&R
as the findings and conclusions of the Court.  He denied the Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction.  All the class allegations are
dismissed.  The Plaintiff will file an amended complaint within 21
days from the entry of the order.  Judge Bramlette also denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Seek Leave, and Motion for Conditional Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y987s88k from Leagle.com.


ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit in California State Court Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, M.D. Ariful
Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493.

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, Edward R. Monfort, the company's former Chief Technology
Officer and former director, and the two underwriters of its
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
company and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.

Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended
complaint.

Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class representatives
Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was
subsequently dropped as a putative class representative.

On October 25, 2019, the company answered the third amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead
Securities (together the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint
against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for
the Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting
Agreement").

On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.

Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.

On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under
the terms of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section
145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020
we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's cross-complaint, generally
denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On April 6, 2020, the Company Defendants, Mr. Monfort, and
Plaintiff Electric Drivetrains engaged in mediation. The
Underwriters declined to participate in the mediation. The
mediation did not result in settlement.

On April 16, 2020, Electric Drivetrains requested that defendants
stipulate to Electric Drivetrains' filing a fourth amended
complaint. Defendants declined to stipulate to the fourth amended
complaint, leading Electric Drivetrains to file a motion to amend
the complaint.

On August 12, 2020, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend
the complaint without prejudice and continued the status conference
that was to be held on this date. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff
filed a renewed motion to amend the complaint.

On September 23, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint, and on September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed the
fourth amended complaint. On October 26, 2020, the Underwriters
filed their answer to the FAC, and on October 27, 2020, the Company
Defendants and Mr. Monfort filed their respective answers to the
FAC.

ADOMANI said, "We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action."

ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.

AIR METHODS: Court Certifies Three Overtime Classes in Wagner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM WAGNER, SUSAN
BRZEZINSKI, MATTHEW DeBROSSE, JOHN GLAZIER, JAMES HOWE, KEVIN
MOFFITT, LAURA WALKER, DANIELLA NOWISKI, GENE STALSBERG, KRISTEN
GRADO, GEORGE RAMEY, NIKOLAS REPETA, and STEPHANIE PAULEY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AIR
METHODS CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson
entered an order:

   1. certifying three overtime classes as follows:

     "all persons employed by AMC as flight paramedics or flight
     nurses in [Michigan] [New Mexico] [Illinois] from February
     19, 2016 to the present;"

   2. appointing Arnold and Miller (Charles W. Arnold and J.
     Robert Cowan) and Moody & Stanford (Christopher Moody) as
     class counsel;" and

   3. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
     motion to (partially) dismiss the plaintiffs' Second
     Amended Complaint;

     -- it is denied as to the plaintiffs Brzezinski and Howe
        but granted as to plaintiffs' alternative claim for
        unjust enrichment.

The Court said, "Having found that the four prerequisites of Rule
23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) have been met, the
Court grants the motion for class certification."

The Plaintiffs, flight paramedics and nurses who work or worked for
Air Methods Corporation in Michigan, New Mexico, and Illinois,
assert claims against their former employer under their respective
states' laws for what they allege to be improperly compensated
overtime hours.

AMC provides air ambulance services throughout the United States.
Flight paramedics and flight nurses are scheduled to work 24-hour
shifts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2X0g6xr at no extra charge.[CC]

ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of January 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 28 disclosed that
purchasers of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) securities
between October 21, 2020 and November 3, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), have until January 12, 2021 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Alibaba securities class action lawsuit,
Ciccarello v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, No. 20-cv-09568
(S.D.N.Y.), which is pending before Judge George B. Daniels.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Alibaba class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Alibaba class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Alibaba class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Alibaba class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Alibaba class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the Alibaba class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Alibaba class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January
12, 2021.

Alibaba is an online and mobile commerce company. Alibaba owns a
33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group
Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company that is
best known for operating Alipay, one of the largest mobile and
online payment platforms. On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced
that it had begun the process of a concurrent initial public
offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges. On
October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its IPO and was set to raise
$34.5 billion, making it the largest public offering in history.

The Alibaba class action lawsuit alleges that, during the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Group did not meet listing
qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material
matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory
environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) Ant Group's IPO
was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Alibaba's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, and Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The
article stated that, though regulators did not provide details,
"the Chinese word used to describe the interview -- yuetan --
generally indicate[s] a dressing down by authorities." The article
also included a statement from Ant Group that it would "implement
the meeting opinions in depth." The following day, on November 3,
2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may not meet listing
qualifications or disclosure requirements due to material matters"
related to the meeting with regulators the previous day and "the
recent changes in the Fintech regulatory environment." On this
news, Alibaba's share price fell more than 8%, damaging investors.

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

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that limited
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit filed against
Faneuil, Inc. by Donna Marshall.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento against Faneuil, Inc. and ALJ.

Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.
Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.

In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. Faneuil demurred to the
PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court.

The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery. A
court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for
November 2020. Faneuil believes this action is without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.

The Company has not accrued any amounts related to the Marshall
claim as of September 30, 2020.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.

ALLSTATE CORP: Class of Stockholders Certified in Carpenters Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled IN RE THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16 C 10510 (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois grants the motion for
class certification.

The certified class consists of "all persons who purchased Allstate
common stock between Oct. 29, 2014 and Aug. 3, 2015, inclusive and
who were damaged thereby.

Plaintiffs Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California
and Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought a
two count putative class action amended complaint against Defendant
Allstate, its CEO, Chairman, and President from 2005 to 2015 Thomas
Wilson, and the CEO and President of Allstate Financial Matthew
Winter, who also took over for Wilson as President in 2015.

Count I alleges that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Count II, brought only against Wilson
and Winter, alleges control person liability under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The Lead Plaintiffs subsequently moved for class certification, and
the Court certified the following class: "All persons who purchased
Allstate Securities between Oct. 29, 2014 and Aug. 3, 2015,
inclusive and who were damaged thereby."

The Defendants took an interlocutory appeal. The Seventh Circuit
agreed with the Court that the Plaintiffs had established the
preliminary elements to invoke the presumption under Basic, Inc. v.
Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), which established the
fraud-on-the-market presumption that allows plaintiffs to avoid
proving individual reliance upon fraudulent misrepresentations and
omissions.

The Seventh Circuit, however, vacated class certification and
remanded for further proceedings. Noting that class discovery was
closed, the court of appeals directed the Court to assess whether
Allstate has rebutted the Basic presumption by a preponderance of
the evidence, "taking into account the Plaintiffs' rebuttal reports
and additional evidence challenging Allstate's showing." The
Appellate Court further instructed, the district court must decide
at the class stage the price impact evidence and the Plaintiffs'
rebuttal.

On remand, both parties submitted supplemental briefs. After
conferring with the parties and reviewing the written submissions,
the Court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing. The class
certification record is closed, and the parties have provided a
robust written record. The Court has reviewed the expert reports
from the Defendants' expert (Allen) and the Plaintiffs' expert
(Finnerty).

Upon due consideration of the arguments and evidence, the Court
finds that the Defendants have not rebutted the Basic presumption
by a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, the motion for
class certification is granted.

District Judge Robert W. Gettleman opines that the Plaintiffs have
established the preliminary elements to invoke the Basic
presumption of reliance. He also concludes that the Defendants have
not rebutted the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the
evidence.

The Court, therefore, grants the motion for class certification and
certifies the class: "All persons who purchased Allstate common
stock between Oct. 29, 2014 and Aug. 3, 2015, inclusive and who
were damaged thereby."

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79naqyc from
Leagle.com.


AM COMMUNICATIONS: Shortchanges Workers Wages, Grant Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orpheus Grant, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by AM Communications Ltd, AM
Communications LLC, AM Communications of Ohio LLC, and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by AM Communications, Ltd.,
AM Communications LLC, and AM Communications of Ohio LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. AM Communications, Ltd., AM Communications LLC, AM
Communications of Ohio LLC, and any related entities, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-01526 (N.D. N.Y., December 10, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and related
damages owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

Grant was employed by AM Communications at their Rochester, New
York location as a technician from approximately December 2018
until September 2020. He claims to be deprived pay for travel time
in between service jobs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Murphy, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com

             - and -

      Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
      GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
      The White House
      7030 E. Genesee Street
      Fayetteville, NY
      Tel: (315) 314-8000
      Fax: (315) 446-7521
      Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com


AME SALT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mederos Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
NELSON MEDEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AME SALT, INC.; and JOAO DE SA NOGUEIRA,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-03079 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 24, 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.

Plaintiff Mederos was employed by the Defendants as warehouse
staff.

Ame Salt, Inc. is a trader or producer and distributor of salt
suitable for water treatment, industrial use, and human and animal
consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


AMERICAN BANK: Lautman Files Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bank
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Mitchell Lautman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Bank Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-RJC (W.D.
Pa., Dec. 16, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed for Diversity-Other.

American Bank Systems, Inc. provides software services to banks
across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com



AMERICAN MODULAR: Adjudication Ruling in Rojas-Cifuentes Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MIGUEL ANGEL ROJAS-CIFUENTES, Petitioner
v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Respondent; AMERICAN
MODULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Real Party in Interest, Case No. C085463
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California reversed the order
granting American Modular's motion for summary adjudication.

Rojas brought the representative action against his former
employer, American Modular, on behalf of himself, other former and
current employees of American Modular, and the State of California.
Relying on the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
Rojas seeks to recover civil penalties for labor violations that
American Modular allegedly committed against its nonexempt
employees.

The trial court, however, rejected Rojas' PAGA claim following
American Modular's motion for summary adjudication. As the court
noted, those seeking to bring PAGA causes of action must, before
filing suit, provide notice to a certain state agency of the laws
the employer allegedly violated and the "facts and theories"
supporting those allegations. But, it found, Rojas failed to
satisfy the threshold requirement. In particular, although the
court found Rojas provided written notice to the state before he
filed suit, it found his notice failed to include sufficient facts
and theories to support his claims. The trial court, thus, rejected
his PAGA cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

After Rojas filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set
aside the trial court's decision, the Appellate Court directed
American Modular to show cause why the writ should not be issued.
Because, unlike the trial court, the Appellate Court finds Rojas'
PAGA notice supplied sufficient facts and theories to support at
least some of his claims, the Appellate Court now issues a writ of
mandate directing the trial court to set aside its order granting
American Modular's motion for summary adjudication.

Before bringing a PAGA action, Rojas first needed to provide notice
to American Modular and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
of the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been
violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged
violation. To that end, Rojas sent a letter in August 2015 to
American Modular and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency in
which he alleged that American Modular systematically failed to pay
current and former California non-exempt employees of AMS in
conformance with certain California laws. At the close of his
letter, Rojas noted that he intended to file a civil action against
American Modular under PAGA unless the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency brought its own action.

Shortly after sending the letter, Rojas filed a complaint against
American Modular that included a PAGA claim, several non-PAGA class
action claims, and an individual claim. His PAGA claim was premised
on the eight violations that he alleged in his letter to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency.

A year later, American Modular filed a motion for summary
adjudication, contending that Rojas' PAGA cause of action failed as
a matter of law. The trial court agreed, finding that Rojas failed
to allege sufficient "facts and theories" in his PAGA notice for
three reasons, including the fact that the trial court found five
of the eight paragraphs in Rojas' PAGA notice that detailed
American Modular's alleged violations were merely statements of the
statute or statements which 'mimic' the statute. It, thus, granted
American Modular's motion. It also granted Rojas leave to amend his
complaint.

Appellate Court Judge Cole Blease says that the Panel's focus in
the case is on PAGA's administrative exhaustion requirements for
these deputized employees. He considers here whether the notice
Rojas provided to comply with this requirement was so deficient of
"facts and theories" that it could not support any part of his PAGA
cause of action. Unlike the trial court, the JUdge finds it was
not.

After the Appellate Court directed American Modular to show cause
why Rojas's requested relief should not be granted, American
Modular modified its position somewhat.  The Court accepts that
Rojas offered some facts and theories to support his allegations
but, for several reasons, maintains these facts and theories are
insufficient.

Agreeing with Rojas, however, the Appellate Court finds none of
American Modular's offered reasons warrant summary adjudication of
the entirety of Rojas's PAGA claim. In its view, Rojas' PAGA notice
supplied sufficient "facts and theories" to support at least some
of the violations he alleged. Because a motion seeking summary
adjudication of an entire cause of action may not be granted unless
"it completely disposes of the cause of action," the Appellate
Court finds that reason enough to rule in Rojas's favor.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court rules that a writ of mandate
should be issued directing the trial court to set aside its order
granting real party American Modular's motion for summary
adjudication and to enter a new order denying that motion. Rojas is
entitled to recover his costs in the original proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8gbvmk from Leagle.com.

Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau --
marco@advocatesforworkers.com -- Hilary Hammell, Eric S. Trabucco
-- est@advocatesforworkers.com -- for Petitioner.

Boutin Jones Inc., Bruce M. Timm -- btimm@boutinjones.com --
Kimberly A. Lucia -- klucia@boutinjones.com -- Andrew M. Ducart --
aducart@boutinjones.com -- for Real Party in Interest.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Smith Suit Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID GARY SMITH and LORI SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
20-CV-00115-GKF-CDL (N.D. Okla.), Judge Gregory Y. Frizzell of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Declaration.

In 2005, the Smiths purchased a homeowners insurance policy,
designated policy no. 35-H-V64-786-2, from ANPAC.  As issued in
2005, the Policy provided full replacement coverage for the roof of
the Smith home. The Policy was renewed annually in 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and remained in effect
during that time.

In 2013, ANPAC mailed the Smiths a copy of their 2013 Policy
renewal. The 2013 renewal included a "roof schedule" through a
Policy endorsement.  In 2014, the Policy again renewed.  Prior to
the renewal in 2014, ANPAC mailed the Smiths a complete renewal
packet, including several documents notifying the Smiths of changes
in the Policy and a full copy of the 2014 Policy and endorsements.
The Policy renewed in 2015, and ANPAC again mailed the Smiths a
full copy of the Policy.

On June 7, 2018, the Smiths' home sustained storm damage which
resulted in the roof needing to be replaced.  On Aug. 16, 2018, the
Smiths reported a claim to ANPAC for the alleged storm damage.  On
Aug. 17, 2018, ANPAC inspected the Smith residence.  On Aug. 22,
2018, ANPAC generated an estimate for removal and replacement of
the Smiths' roof.  The total of ANPAC's estimate was $7,199.59.
ANPAC paid the Smiths $7,199.59 for the roof damage claim.

On Feb. 4, 2020, the Smiths initiated the case on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated by filing a Class
Action Petition in the District Court in and for Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.  On March 20, 2020, ANPAC removed the matter to
the Court.

The Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in
the matter, includes allegations with respect to two separate
classes, the first of which includes a subclass:

   (1) Class #1, defined to include all persons or entities who
       were, prior to 2014, insured under a homeowners' insurance
       policy issued by ANPAC which included replacement cost
       coverage for roof damage claims, whose policies were
       purportedly changed by ANPAC in 2014 by removing
       replacement cost coverage for roof damage claims and
       replacing the same with reduced coverage, and who were
       purportedly notified of the Policy Change by ANPAC by
       delivery of the 2014 Renewal Packet;

       * Subclass A to Class #1, defined to include persons who
         meet the definition of Class #1, who made a claim for
         roof loss under their homeowners' policy after the
         purported policy change in 2014 and who were denied
         replacement cost coverage; and

   (2) Class #2, defined to include all persons or entities
       insured under a homeowners' insurance policy issued by
       ANPAC which included additional coverage for debris
       removal, who incurred labor costs for debris removal and
       had such costs reduced by ANPAC for depreciation.

The Second Amended Complaint includes the following "counts": (1)
declaration of rights, (2) fraud, (3) breach of contract, and (4)
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  The
"declaration of rights" count seeks a declaration that the
Purported Notice of Policy change was ineffective to change the
Policy with respect to replacement cost coverage for roof claims
and that the Policy provides, and provided at the time of the
Plaintiffs' loss in 2018, replacement cost coverage for roof
claims.  The fraud count includes allegations that ANPAC
deliberately misrepresented and concealed the reduction in coverage
for roofs damaged by wind or hail to induce the Smiths to continue
paying Policy premiums, regardless of the coverage provided.

The breach of contract count asserts that ANPAC breached the
insurance contract in two separate ways: (1) failing to pay
replacement cost coverage benefits for the roof damage, and (2)
paying depreciated coverage benefits for debris removal.  Finally,
the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing count alleges
that ANPAC breached its duty both in its handling of their
insurance claim after the 2018 roof damage and in purporting to
change the terms of the Policy.

On July 13, 2020, ANPAC filed the motion for summary judgment,
which is limited to the Smiths' claims.  The Smiths responded in
opposition, and ANPAC filed a reply brief.  The same day it filed
its reply in support of summary judgment, ANPAC filed the motion to
strike, seeking to strike Exhibit 4 to the Smiths' summary judgment
response, the Declaration of Robert A. Leonard, Ph.D.

ANPAC seeks to strike the Leonard Declaration based on three
general arguments: (1) Dr. Leonard improperly opines as to an
ultimate legal conclusion; (2) Dr. Leonard is not qualified by
knowledge or experience to offer his opinions in the case; and (3)
Dr. Leonard's testimony is unhelpful and unreliable.

Judge Frizzell considers ANPAC's second and third objections to the
Leonard's Declaration together.  He finds that the adequacy of
ANPAC's notice to the Smiths is a question of law for the Court to
decide.  Accordingly, for purposes of the summary judgment
determination, he strikes and does not consider portions of the
Leonard Declaration opining that ANPAC failed to provide "clear and
conspicuous notice" of the coverage change.  He therefore wholly
strikes paragraph 29, and strikes all opinions directed to "clear
and conspicuous" notice included in paragraphs 18, 22-23, 26-28 of
the Leonard Declaration.

Judge Frizzell also finds that ANPAC filed its motion for summary
judgment within four months of removal to the Court.  The
Plaintiffs' Rule 26 expert disclosures are not due until Jan. 29,
2021.  The record has not yet been sufficiently developed for the
Court to rule on the remainder of ANPAC's Daubert challenges.
Accordingly, ANPAC's motion to strike the remainder of the Leonard
Declaration is denied without prejudice to reassertion of the
objections.  The motion to strike is otherwise granted.

ANPAC seeks summary judgment as to all of the Smiths' claims in the
matter.  The Judge first considers the adequacy of the notice
provided by ANPAC to the Smiths regarding the 2014 change in Policy
coverage for roofs damaged by wind or hail, and then considers the
propriety of summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims premised
on the change (declaratory relief, fraud, breach of contract, and
bad faith).  Finally, he considers the Plaintiffs' two
claims--breach of contract and bad faith--premised on ANPAC's
depreciation of debris removal.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part ANPAC's Motion for
Summary Judgment.  The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs'
request for declaratory judgment and fraud claim, as well as the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing claims to the extent premised on failure to pay
replacement cost coverage for the roof damage.  The motion is
otherwise denied.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) ANPAC provided
adequate notice of the 2014 Policy changes regarding roofs damaged
by hail or wind under Oklahoma law; (ii)  Smiths are bound to the
language of the 2014 Policy as written and ANPAC is entitled to
summary judgment as to the Smiths' claim for declaratory judgment;
(iii)  ANPAC neither misrepresented nor concealed the change in the
Policy's coverage; (iv) no genuine dispute of fact exists as to
whether ANPAC breached the insurance contract by failing to pay
replacement cost coverage for the damaged roof; (v) ANPAC is
entitled to summary judgment in its favor on the Smiths' bad faith
claim to the extent premised on ANPAC's failure to pay replacement
cost coverage for the damage to the roof; and (vi) summary judgment
as to the Smiths' breach of contract and bad faith claims, to the
extent premised on depreciation of debris removal costs, is
unwarranted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y756p4oh from Leagle.com.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Drug Price Fixing Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
related to alleged price-fixing, market allocation and bid rigging
of generic drugs, is pending.

In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.

The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.

The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs.

In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint.

On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.

AMICA MUTUAL: Massachusetts Dist. Narrows Claims in Gottlieb Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PETER A. GOTTLIEB, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 20-cv-10509-DJC (D. Mass.), the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts allowed in part and denied in part
Amica's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Gottlieb, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated homeowner insurance policyholders, has sued
Defendant Amica for breach of contract (Count I), breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), unjust
enrichment (Count III), "money had and received" (Count IV) and
unfair or deceptive acts under Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A (Count V),
arising from Amica's alleged excessive premium increases. Amica now
moves to dismiss Gottlieb's complaint in the entirety for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Mr. Gottlieb alleges that Amica breached the terms of the 2015-2016
Policy when it offered him the 2016-2017 Policy with a $10,000
dwelling limit increase because the 2015-2016 Policy allowed Amica
to increase coverage only in accordance with property evaluations
and increases in inflation (Count I).

The Court allows Amica's motion to dismiss Gottlieb's breach of
contract claim (Count I). It opines that the Endorsement in the
2015-2016 Policy does not govern Amica's ability to increase
coverage limitation in the 2016-2017 Policy and does not constitute
a basis for a breach of contract claim.

District Judge Denise J. Casper allows the motion to dismiss the
claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(Count II).  She says that Gottlieb's allegations, even presuming
them to be true as the Court must at this juncture, do not explain
how Amica's alleged conduct deprived him of the "fruits" of the
2016-17 Policy, particularly where this contract, including the
Endorsement, does not guarantee him another coverage limit or
require a particular calculation procedure.

As alleged by Gottlieb, Amica artificially inflated increases in
premiums to overcharge him and seeks recovery and/or disgorgement
of these overpayments. Accepting these allegations as true, Judge
Casper notes, Gottlieb has plausibly pled that the circumstances
under which Amica received the benefit of an increase in premiums
were inequitable. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to
dismiss as to the unjust enrichment and money had and received
claims (Count IV).

Amica moves to dismiss Gottlieb's Chapter 93A claim in its
entirety, including to the extent to which he relies upon its
Chapter 93A Response Letter.

Judge Casper opines that to the extent that Gottlieb was relying
upon his breach of contract claim and/or breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, which the Court has concluded have
not been plausibly alleged, for his Chapter 93A claim, this portion
of his Chapter 93A claim also fails. It is unclear that Gottlieb is
alleging any unfair or deceptive practices other than the conduct
that gives rise to his other claims. Accordingly, the Court allows
the Chapter 93A claim to proceed only to the extent that Gottlieb
relies upon the conduct underling his unjust enrichment and money
had and received claims, Counts III and IV, which also survive,
which at least plausibly alleges a Chapter 93A claim.

For these reasons, the Court allows Amica's motion to dismiss as to
Count I (breach of contract) and Count II (breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and denies it as to Count
III (unjust enrichment) and Count IV (money had and received) and
denies it in part as to Count V (Chapter 93A) to extent it relies
upon conduct giving rise to Count III and Count IV, but otherwise
allows the motion to dismiss as to Count V.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9fturvb from
Leagle.com.


AMISTAD HOMECARE: Fails to Provide Paid Sick Time, Fenwick Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Amistad Homecare, Inc., Ramona Diego, Rebecca Diego
and Alfonso Diego, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01403, (W.D. Tex.,
December 10, 2020) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees for failure to provide paid sick time and compensation for all
hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked in
excess of forty per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Emergency Paid Sick
Leave Act.

Amistad Homecare owns and operates a home health care company where
Fenwick worked as a physical therapist assistant from January of
2020 until the present visiting patients in their homes and
assisting patients with physical therapy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com


AMYRIS INC: Paid $125,000 Counsel Fees in Flatischler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amyris, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on December 14, 2020, that the
company agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel in full
satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
putative class action suit entitled, Alexander Flatischler v. John
Melo, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0617-JRS.

On July 24, 2020, Amyris, Inc. and the members of its board of
directors were named as defendants in a putative stockholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Alexander Flatischler v. John Melo, et al., C.A. No.
2020-0617-JRS.

The complaint alleged that the Company's July 6, 2020 Schedule 14A
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, omitted material information regarding the transactions
described therein, which required stockholder approval of certain
issuances of the Company's common stock.

The Action sought, among other remedies, to enjoin the stockholder
vote. After the Action was filed, and without admitting that the
allegations in the Action had any merit, the Company supplemented
the Proxy Statement by including additional disclosures in a
Schedule 14A filed with the SEC on August 5, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the Court approved a stipulated order under
which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action as moot, with
prejudice as to himself only, but without prejudice as to any other
putative class member.

The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Without admitting that the allegations in the Action had any merit
and while continuing to maintain that such allegations were without
merit, the Company decided it was in its and the stockholders' best
interests to resolve the Fee Application and avoid further
litigation of the issue by agreeing to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's
counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and
expenses in the Action. On December 9, 2020, the Court entered a
stipulated order providing that the Company would issue this
notice.

The Court has not and will not pass judgment on the amount of the
Mootness Fee.

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.

ANAPLAN INC: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Grobler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Anaplan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that a lead plaintiff has
been appointed in the putative securities class action suit
entitled, Sergio Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., 3:20-cv-05959.

On August 24, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Sergio Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., 3:20-cv-05959, against the
Company and certain of the Company's executive officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased Anaplan, Inc. common stock
between November 21, 2019, and February 26, 2020, inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
the Company's prior public filings. Two lead plaintiff motions were
filed on October 23, 2020. The Court appointed lead plaintiff on
November 12, 2020. The Company expects that the appointed lead
plaintiff will file an amended complaint.  

The defendants will then have 60 days after the filing of the
amended complaint to file a motion to dismiss.

Anaplan said, "At this point, no discovery has occurred in this
case. The case is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not
possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential
liability to the defendants, if any. The Company believes that the
lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of or is not able to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss from the
above described matter."

Anaplan, Inc. is pioneering the category of Connected Planning. The
company's platform enables organizations to make better decisions
and to plan and execute their ongoing digital transformation to
compete in today’s digital economy. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.

ARK RESTAURANTS: Settlement Reached in Former Tipped Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that a settlement has been
reached in the putative class action suit initiated by two former
tipped service workers.

On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain
subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company.  

Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws
and related regulations.  

The Complaint sought unspecified money damages, together with
interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees.  

On December 14, 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement
resolving all issues alleged in the Complaint, which will be
submitted to the New York State Supreme Court for approval, for
approximately the amount which was previously accrued.

Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19
fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New
York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The
Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch.

ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Reaches $3.75MM Class Settlement in Chupa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on December 1, 2020, that
a settlement in principle has been reached on the securities class
action suit entitled, Chupa v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2-19-cv-09840.

On November 30, 2020, Armstrong Flooring, Inc. reached a settlement
in principle to fully resolve the securities class action suit,
Chupa v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. et al., Case No. 2-19-cv-09840,
initially filed on November 15, 2019, pending against the Company
and certain of its former officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

The agreement, which is subject to final documentation and Court
approval, provides in part for a settlement payment of $3.75
million in exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims
against the defendants in connection with the securities class
action suit.

The $3.75 million settlement payment will be paid by the Company's
insurance provider under its insurance policy.

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.


ARVEST CENTRAL: Miller Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida remanded the case, ANDREW MILLER,
Plaintiff v. ARVEST CENTRAL MORTGAGE CO., Defendant, Case No.
20-22820-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.), to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Court in and for Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff filed the complaint in Florida state court alleging
the Defendant knowingly and deliberately charged borrowers an
unauthorized fee each time they made online or telephone mortgage
payments.  On behalf of himself and a class of borrowers, the
Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract, violation of
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act stemming from the
unauthorized charges.

Invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
the Defendant removed the case to the Court.  The Plaintiff is
moving to remand arguing the amount-in-controversy of $5 million is
not met.  The Defendant argues the amount is met because the
Plaintiff's complaint pleads an exception to the statutory cap on
punitive damages under Florida law and the Plaintiff's state court
civil cover sheet states the amount at issue is over $5 million.

The Plaintiff, however, provides his counsel's declaration stating
that the statutory damages are $500,000 and the compensatory
damages are $650,000.  Florida allows for punitive damages capped
at treble the compensatory damages and the declaration explains the
math and how these figures total $3.1 million, which is the actual
amount in controversy in the case.  The Plaintiff also claims the
civil cover sheet contains a scrivener's error as to the amount at
issue.

Judge Moreno concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint, the
declaration of his counsel, and the computation of damages do not
support a finding that uncapped punitive damages are in controversy
in the case.  Although the complaint requests exemplary damages
(i.e. punitive damages), the allegations relate to general
violations of the FCCPA and the FDUTPA, and are insufficient for
the Court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Plaintiff is seeking to invoke a statutory exception to the
punitive damages cap.  In addition, the civil cover sheet is also
insufficient to establish the jurisdictional amount by a
preponderance of the evidence especially given the Plaintiff's
counsel's declaration providing a concrete computation of damages
and the Plaintiff's assertion that the civil cover sheet contains a
scrivener's error.

Because Judge Moreno finds the allegations in the complaint, even
coupled with the civil cover sheet, do not establish that uncapped
punitive damages are at issue, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Remand, filed on Aug. 10, 2020, and remanded the case to
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7kcfv8r from Leagle.com.


ASCENA RETAIL: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the securities
class action suit entitled, In re Ascena Retail Group, Inc. Sec.
Litig., remains stayed.

On June 7, 2019, plaintiff James Newman commenced a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, naming Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and
certain of Ascena's current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

The Newman complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to
the Company's goodwill impairment accounting and statements
regarding the success of the 2015 purchase of ANN and the overall
performance and expected growth of the ANN brands.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers
of Ascena securities between September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017.

On July 2, 2019, a second lawsuit was filed by Michaella
Corporation. The Michaella complaint is substantially similar to
the Newman complaint. Both the Michaella complaint and the Newman
complaint name the same defendants, allege the same proposed Class
Period, and challenge the same categories of public statements
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On August 6, 2019, two potential lead plaintiffs (Joel Patterson
and Michaella Corporation) filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Newman and Michaella actions, and to consolidate
both actions. On August 23, 2019, the Court consolidated the two
actions as In re Ascena Retail Group, Inc. Sec. Litig. and
appointed Patterson and Michaella Corporation as joint
lead-plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint on
November 21, 2019, which shortened the class period. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 7,
2020. The motion has now been fully briefed.

However, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy
with the Court on July 27, 2020, and on July 28, 2020, the Court
issued an order staying the proceedings and administratively
terminated the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The motion may be re-filed at a later date. Lead Plaintiffs'
counsel has also filed an objection to Ascena's bankruptcy plan in
order to try to preserve the purported class claims against the
Company and its officers and directors from any possible release
pursuant to the Plan.

Ascena said, "Given the early state of the matter, we are unable to
make a determination at this time as to the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range of any
possible loss."

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. is a national specialty retailer of
apparel for women and tween girls. The Company's operations consist
of its direct channel operations and approximately 2,500 stores in
the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico as of August 1, 2020. The
company is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.

ATLANTA, GA: Stay of Class Cert. Proceedings Expires on Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL LAWSON, JAMES
CURTIS, and JAMES TURNER, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated persons, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Case No.
1:18-cv-02484-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg
entered an order that:

   --  the current stay will expire on January 8, 2021;

   --  the parties shall have through and including January 28,
       2021 to file their stipulation regarding class
       certification, along with a proposed order; and

   --  In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement
       on certification, the Plaintiffs shall file their motion
       for class certification by January 28, 2021 and the
       parties shall simultaneously submit a proposed scheduling
       order for discovery and other purposes for the Court's
       consideration.

Atlanta is the capital of the U.S. state of Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WXi9ma at no extra charge.[CC]

BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Deliverymen Class OK'd, Rule 23 Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUI HUA DING, et al., v.
BAUMGART RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10358-JMV-JBC
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in the Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification;

   2. certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action
      Class of:

      "deliverymen at Baumgart Cafe from June 10, 2015 to the
      present pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   3. directing the Defendants to provide a list of names and
      contact information for these employees to facilitate
      class notice;

      -- the Defendants must provide the employees' names; the
         date(s) of employment; and last known contact
         information,  including all telephone number(s), email
         address(es), and WhatsApp, WeChat and/or Facebook
         username(s); and

      -- to the extent the information exists in an electronic
         format, the Defendants shall provide it in such a
         format;

   4. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      proposed notice and consent form, and must submit the
      proposed notice, with any objections, to the Court for
      review and approval within thirty days of the entry of
      this Order; and

   5. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify Rule 23 Class.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs only establish that they learned
what other deliverymen were paid. Without this critical information
about compensation for some employees, and in light of the
Plaintiffs' evidence demonstrating a substantial pay disparity with
other employees, the Court cannot determine whether all
non-managerial employees were similarly situated to Plaintiffs.
Thus, because the Plaintiffs only provide evidence demonstrating
that they were similarly situated to other deliverymen, the Court
will only conditionally certify a class of Baumgart Cafe
deliverymen."

The Plaintiffs contend that they establish commonality because "the
Defendants have a straightforward, centralized, uniform policy
regarding the pay of employees' compensation at flat rates
regardless of the hours worked." The Plaintiffs' affidavits
actually establish that there are large discrepancies in how much
different categories of employees were paid. Thus, the Plaintiffs
fail to satisfy the commonality requirement for a class of all
nonmanagerial Baumgart Cafe employees. Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a Rule 23 class, therefore, is denied."

Plaintiff Ding filed the Complaint in the matter on June 10, 2018,
alleging that the Defendants failed to pay him minimum wage and
compensate him for overtime work as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Ding further
alleges that Defendants had a policy and practice of underpaying
other non-exempt and nonmanagerial employees.

The Defendants Steve Wu, Marsha Wu, and GouFu Wang are "founders of
the Baumgart enterprise,” which includes Baumgart Cafe, and had
the power to hire, fire, determine wages, and establish work
schedules for employees.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n4MQ36 at no extra charge.[CC]

BEAUTY LALA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Salon Staff, Sun Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MENGNI SUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAUTY LALA INC. d/b/a Sasa Nails and Spa;
NEW SA SA NAIL LLC d/b/a Sasa Nails and Spa; JIDONG WU a/k/a Ji
Dong Wu; LILI GAO a/k/a Li Li Gao; JINSONG HUANG a/k/a Jin Song
Huang; LUJING WU a/k/a Lu Jing Wu; and GUANHUA HUANG a/k/a Guan Hua
Huang, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01925 (D. Conn., Dec. 28, 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.

Plaintiff Sun was employed by the Defendants as salon worker.

Beauty Lala Inc. d/b/a Sasa Nails and Spa operates as a beauty
shop. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


BECTON DICKINSON: 1,650 Filter Product Liability Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that as of
September 30, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 1,650
product liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior
vena cava filters.

The majority of those claims were previously pending in an MDL in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being,
remanded to various federal jurisdictions.

Filter Product Claims are also pending in various state court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State
Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally
seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of
the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company.

On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or
transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above,
remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to
continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials
are scheduled throughout fiscal year 2021.

As of September 30, 2020, the Company entered into settlement
agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for
approximately 8,120 cases. On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first
MDL trial found the Company liable for negligent failure to warn
and entered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury found the
Company was not liable for (a) strict liability design defect; (b)
strict liability failure to warn; and (c) negligent design.

In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that verdict on appeal.


On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the
Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects
additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the
next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 525 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that as of
September 30, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 525
product liability claims involving the Company's line of pelvic
mesh devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in various
federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative
class actions filed in the United States. Not included in the
figures above are approximately 980 filed and unfiled claims that
have been asserted or threatened against the Company but lack
sufficient information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of
the Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc), each a supplier of the
Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to any product defect liability relating to
products its subsidiaries had manufactured.

In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in
which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing
settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that
relate to products distributed by the Company under supply
agreements with Medtronic.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements.

As of September 30, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $148
million towards these potential settlements. The Company also may,
in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of
additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar
terms.

The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative
class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have
settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle
to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of September 30, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,235 of the Women's Health Product Claims. The Company believes
that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of
Medtronic's indemnification obligation.

These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include
unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs'
law firms, which are not included in the approximate number of
lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2021 in state and
federal courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding
began in March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict
against the Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process
of appealing that verdict.

The Company expects additional trials of Women's Health Product
Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially
include consolidated trials.
During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 21,370 Hernia Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that as of
September 30, 2020, the Company is defending approximately 21,370
product liability claims involving the Company's line of hernia
repair devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition,
those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada.

Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to
time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months. In August 2018, a hernia
multi-district litigation (MDL) was ordered to be established in
the Southern District of Ohio. Trials are scheduled throughout
fiscal year 2021 in various state and/or federal courts, with the
first trial currently scheduled for April 2021 in the MDL. A second
trial is likely to be scheduled for April 2021 in Rhode Island.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No.
2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CL.

On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC)
(CLW), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material
information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1)
certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was
investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements
and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain
pumps and/or experience regulatory delays.

These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain
public statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock
at an inflated price.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

BEFORE BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Before Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Before Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10979 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Before Brands -- https://www.spoonfulone.com/ -- is a science-based
health and wellness company.[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


BELL COUNTY, TX: Anderson Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheriff Eddie Lange
Bell County Sheriff. The case is styled as Michael Orville
Anderson, III and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sheriff
Eddie Lange Bell County Sheriff, and all successors and
subordinates, Shawn Snyder Bell County Elections Admin., and all
successors and subordinates, Chief Charles Kimble Killeen Police
Department, and all successors and subordinates, Justin K.
Carothers Coryell County, TX Voter Registrar, and all successors
and subordinates, John/Jane Doe Texas Secretary of State, and all
successors and subordinates, John/Jane Doe USA Secretary of State,
and all successors and subordinates, Virgil Gentry Killeen Police
Department Fingerprinting Officer, and all successors and
subordinates, Corporal FNU Gomez Killeen Police Department, and all
successors and subordinates, Secretary of State, in All States
except Texas, and all successors and subordinates, Voter Registrars
in all Texas counties except Coryell, and all successors and
subordinates, Chiefs of Police in all municipalities within all
counties of all States of the United States, and all successors and
subordinates, Sheriffs of all counties in all states within the
United States, and all successors and subordinates and Incorporated
Municipalities
within every county of every state of the United States with
individuals operating under "color of law" for the purposes of this
suit, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-01155-ADA (W.D. Tex., Dec. 16,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Defendants are government representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BELLRING BRANDS: Class Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bellring Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that Premier Nutrition
Company, LLC, continues to defend the so-called Joint Juice
Litigation.

In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's advertising
claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine and
chondroitin dietary supplements were false and misleading.

In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class
of consumers in this lawsuit.

In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California
Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

These additional complaints contain factual allegations similar to
the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal
Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Plaintiff's
petition for an en banc rehearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit was denied.

The other ten complaints remain pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and the court has
certified individual state classes in each of those cases.

In January 2019 and in August 2020, the same lead counsel filed
additional class action complaints against Premier Nutrition in
Alameda County California Superior Court, alleging claims similar
to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers.

The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases. The Company
does not believe that the resolution of these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Bellring Brands, Inc. manufactures food supplements. The Company
produces nutritional items such as protein shakes, powders, and
bars. Bellring Brands serves customers in the State of Missouri.
The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Cota Loses Bid to Strike Answer's Defenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULISSA COTA, Plaintiff v. BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20cv1496-LAB (RBB) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Larry
Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
strike around 20 of the answer's defenses filed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action, bringing claims
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and supplemental
state law claims.  She asks the Court to compel the Defendant to
upgrade its website to be accessible to blind and visually impaired
people.  The joint motions for extension of time to answer are
granted, and the answer is accepted as filed.

On December 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike around
20 of the answer's defenses.  The motion describes them all as
affirmative defenses, although most of them are not, Judge Burns
notes.  Of the defenses the motion seeks to strike, only laches,
estoppel, and waiver are clearly affirmative defenses, although one
or two others pertaining specifically to ADA claims may also fit
within the category.

Judge Burns holds that several of what the Plaintiff labels
affirmative defenses are jurisdictional or quasi-jurisdictional,
and the he cannot ignore them regardless of how adequately or
inadequately they are raised--or whether they are raised at all.
Specifically, mootness and standing are clearly jurisdictional.
Several other defenses relate to the lack of one of the elements of
standing (i.e., a concrete injury fairly traceable to the
Defendant), even if they are also related to the merits.  Others
pertain to the availability of injunctive relief.

At the outset, the Judge notes that motions to strike are generally
disfavored, because their importance in federal practice is
limited, and because they often lead to pointless delays and costs.
The fact that it is a putative class action whose class consists
of unknown people with unknown injuries also weighs against
granting the motion.  The Plaintiff herself does not know and
cannot allege the facts of putative class members' claims.
Expecting the Defendant to allege them, or forgo its defenses
against those claims, would be unreasonable.

The complaint itself is also sparsely pled at key points, the Judge
adds.  While it is replete with detail on some subjects, it tends
to retreat into ambiguity when alleging the Plaintiff's own
individual claims.  The motion also argues that the Plaintiff would
be burdened by having to litigate these defenses.  It is, however,
a remote prospect.

The Judge recognizes that motions to strike have a role to play,
and that even in similar ADA cases courts sometimes grant them or
grant them in part.  But, the Plaintiff's motion does not advance
the litigation.  Under these circumstances, there is no reason to
require the Defendant to bear the burden of opposing the motion or
amending its answer at this stage of the proceedings.

Hence, the motion is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yagkap6y from Leagle.com.


BIG LOTS: Duranko UTPCPL Class Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTINA DURANKO, GERRY MCLEAN, MARY MAROUS, JOYCE
WOJTON, BEVERLY EVANS, JENNIFER POLLOCK, and MARTHA BAILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIG
LOTS INC., DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, GIANT EAGLE, INC., JO-ANN
STORES, LLC, OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC., THE HOME DEPOT,
INC., TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION, ULTA BEAUTY, INC., and WALMART
INC., Case No. GD-20-10525;20-10605, was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December
28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02000-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) by charging sales tax on protective face masks after March
6, 2020.

Big Lots Inc. is an American retail company headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

Giant Eagle, Inc. is an American supermarket chain with stores in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, and Maryland.

Jo-Ann Stores, LLC is an American specialty retailer of crafts and
fabrics based in Hudson, Ohio.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is an American chain of
discount retail stores headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer in the United
States, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Tuesday Morning Corporation is an American discount, off-price
retailer based in Dallas, Texas.

Ulta Beauty, Inc. is an American chain of beauty stores
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         James W. Forsyth, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         One Oxford Centre
         301 Grant Street, 41st Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Telephone: (412) 620-6500
         Facsimile: (412) 275-2390
         E-mail: jforsyth@cozen.com

               - and –

         Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq.
         Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
         COZEN O'CONNOR
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 665-2000
         Facsimile: (215) 665-2013
         E-mail: mmctigue@cozen.com
                 mslawe@cozen.com


BIG PICTURE: Renewed Class Cert. Bid for Claims v. Martorello Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LULA WILLIAMS, et al., v.
BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a
Renewed Motion for Class Certification of Claims Against Matt
Martorello.

This case involves an illegal tribal lending enterprise created and
operated by Matt Martorello -- a Chicago entrepreneur with no
lineage to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians (LVD). Over the past nine years, Martorello made and
collected on high-interest loans to consumers originated in the
name of Red Rock Tribal Lending, LLC and Big Picture Loans, LLC --
two entities organized under the LVD's laws. Although the tribal
lenders claimed to be owned and operated by the LVD, Martorello
performed and controlled significant aspects of the lending
businesses and, most importantly, received the vast majority of the
profits (98% of the net income) from the lending enterprise.

The enterprise made loans with annual percentage rates greater than
700%, i.e., more than 55 times higher than Virginia's 12% interest
rate cap on these loans. If a lender makes a loan exceeding 12% APR
without a license in Virginia, Virginia law mandates that the "loan
contract shall be void," and it prohibits the collection of "any
principal, interest, or charges whatsoever with respect to the
loan." Virginia law further allows recovery of "[t]wice the total
amount of interest paid" to a person "taking or receiving such
payments."

This class action seeks to recover all amounts paid on these
illegal loans from Martorello, who has personally pocketed tens of
millions of dollars as a result of his role in this scheme. In
addition to the violations of Virginia's usury laws, Martorello's
conduct violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), a statute enacted with the "principal aim" of
eliminating "loansharking." As a participant (and the primary
beneficiary) of this contemporary loansharking enterprise,
Martorello is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs and
the class members for the collection of the unlawful debt, asserts
the complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2WLHOhz at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Classes, are:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Amy Austin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  amyaustin@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey Nash, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Matthew Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          Michael Allen Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston, TX 77007-1722
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com

BIOGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 28 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11809&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
Class Period: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020

Allegations against ICPT include that: (i) Defendants downplayed
the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with the
use of Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), Intercept's lead product
candidate, in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (ii) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") investigation into Ocaliva's development,
thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the
sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits
associated with OCA's efficacy in treating nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks of its use;
(iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's New
Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis
due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11809&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021
Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2019

Allegations against BIIB include that: (1) the larger dataset did
not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness;
(2) the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data
regarding the effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational
human monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early
Alzheimer's disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not
provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4)
the data provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs
Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of aducanumab;
and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11809&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020

Allegations against KNDI include that: (i) Kandi artificially
inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party
transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers
that indicated those customers did not have an arms length
relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the
past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties
with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast
doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt
on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a
foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and
valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending.

On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an
order granting the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for
leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015.

On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing the complaint,
but vacated the order denying leave to amend and remanded to the
District Court for further proceedings in connection with the
plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on September 13, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former
Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court denied the motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018.

On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the case on
its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery to
continue. On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional
plaintiffs Cho and Ulug.

On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of Cho
and Ulug against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug
filed a Notice of Appeal. Cho and Ulug filed their opening brief on
February 20, 2020, the Company filed its opposition brief on May
21, 2020, Cho and Ulug filed their reply brief on June 11, 2020,
and oral argument was held on October 30, 2020. The Court removed
the case from its suspense calendar on May 29, 2020.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June 8, 2020,
the defendants filed oppositions on August 10, 2020, and the
plaintiffs filed a reply on September 28, 2020. All discovery was
completed as of November 13, 2020.

No other dates have been set.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.

BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court.

On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class
action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 16, 2015, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for
misrepresentation.

On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling. On January 22, 2016, the Court
postponed the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion to an
undetermined date after asking the Company to file a motion to
dismiss the claims of the U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens.


Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class
to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto
Stock Exchange.

On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification
was published on March 6, 2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and
discovery is proceeding.

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

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.

BLACKBERRY LTD: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Employment Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the employment class action suit filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees' employment with the Company.

The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to
appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019.

The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17,
2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019,
and discovery is proceeding.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.

BLINK CHARGING: Court Consolidates Vittoria and Bush Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Blink Charging Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit with the Bush Lawsuit.

On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael
Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer).

The Bush complaint asserts that the defendants made materially
false or misleading statements during the putative class period,
and includes claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Bush complaint does not quantify damages, but seeks to recover
damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Blink's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020.

The Bush complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false or misleading statements about the number, accessibility
and functionality of the charging stations in the Blink Network and
Blink's partnerships and expansions with third parties.

On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action
lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No.
20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and
seeking to recover the same alleged damages.

On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit
with the Bush Lawsuit.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the
consolidated action vigorously.

Blink Charging Co. a leading owner, operator and supplier of
proprietary electric vehicle ("EV") charging equipment and
networked EV charging services. The company serves both residential
and commercial EV charging settings, enabling EV drivers to easily
recharge at various location types. The company is based in Miami
Beach, Florida.   

BMW GROUP: Settles Coolant Pump Class Action for 2007-2019 Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW
water pump lawsuit settlement has been reached between vehicle
owners and BMW in a class action that alleges the coolant pumps are
defective and cause sudden engine failures in these vehicles.

2008-2013 BMW 135i
2007-2013 BMW 335i, 335i xDrive, 335is Convertible
2008-2016 BMW 535i, 535i xDrive, 535i Active Hybrid
2012-2017 BMW 640i, 640i xDrive
2010-2015 BMW 740i, 740Li
2012-2015 BMW X1 3.0si
2011-2017 BMW X3 xDrive
2015-2018 BMW X4 xDrive, X4 M40i
2007-2013 BMW X5 3.0si, X5 xDrive30i, X5 xDrive
2008-2019 BMW X6 sDrive, X6 xDrive
2009-2016 BMW Z4 sDrive

BMW denies there are defects in the vehicles and denies all
allegations in the class action. But the automaker says it will
settle because of the high cost and time required for continued
litigation.

BMW Water Pump Lawsuit Settlement: Reimbursements
According to the proposed agreement, any BMW customer who spent
money to replace one failed BMW original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) coolant pump and if also damaged, one BMW OEM thermostat may
be eligible for reimbursement. The reimbursement applies to one
vehicle per owner/lessee during the earlier of the first 7 years or
84,000 miles in service.

However, there are conditions to meet.

A customer must provide proof by submitting the following
documentation.

1. A repair order from an authorized BMW dealership or independent
repair facility licensed to perform such repairs that identifies a
vehicle and VIN, the part number(s) used, and the cost of the
repair, with parts and labor separated.

2. Documentation that identifies the owner/lessee of the BMW
vehicle (a copy of a vehicle title, registration or license
receipt) at the time of the repair; proof, in the form of a
canceled check, credit card receipt, credit card statement, or
receipt from the repairing shop, demonstrating the customer paid
for the "amount(s) sought for reimbursement; (e) the mileage of the
Settlement Class Vehicle at the time of repair; (f) the nature of
the repair and the part(s) used in the repair; and (g) the date of
repair."

BMW does not warrant or guarantee any repairs performed at
third-party repair shops or using non-OEM parts.

The BMW water pump lawsuit settlement also has several exclusions
from reimbursements based on what caused the coolant pump to fail.

BMW will not reimburse:

1. Costs for damage resulting from negligence; improper maintenance
or repairs; wear and tear or deterioration due to driving habits or
conditions; improper repair, environmental influences, flood,
accident, or fire damage; road-salt corrosion; alteration;
installation of non-genuine OEM parts or accessories; or use of
improper, poor quality or contaminated fuel.

2. Costs for vehicles with failed salvaged parts, including where a
salvaged part has been used as replacement.

3. Costs incurred for vehicles for which the VIN has been altered
or cannot be read.

4. Costs incurred to replace parts after a vehicle has been
declared a total loss, sold for salvage purposes or branded with a
salvage title, for reasons unrelated to electric engine coolant
pump failure.

5. Costs incurred for vehicles that have been used in any racing
event.

6. Costs incurred for vehicles with a failed aftermarket (non-BMW)
electric coolant pump.

7. Costs incurred for vehicles whose true mileage is unknown.

8. Costs for vehicles shipped outside the U.S.

9. Costs for vehicles registered/titled outside the U.S.

BMW Water Pump Lawsuit Settlement: Warranty Extension
On the effective date of the lawsuit settlement, the limited
warranty period for the water pump will be extended from 4
years/50,000 miles to 7 years/84,000 miles, whichever comes first.

BMW does not warrant any non-OEM or used replacement parts, nor
does BMW warrant repairs performed at third-party (non-BMW
authorized) repair shops.

Attorneys for vehicle owners are expected to receive $900,000.

The BMW water pump lawsuit final approval hearing is scheduled for
February 18, 2021.

The BMW water pump lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey: Oliver, et al v. Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., and Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. [GN]


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Sale of Furniture Warranty "Deceptive," Glover Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENAL GLOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10924 (S.D.N.Y., December 25, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of false and misleading sale of furniture warranties. The
Defendant's Goof Proof warranty is sold to customers, including the
Plaintiff, to protect against damage by liquids, food or beverage
stains, pen markings, cosmetics, and rips, tears, cuts and
punctures. However, when customers submit a warranty claim for one
of the covered reasons, they are denied with the explanation that
the damage or stain was not accidental, but due to misuse. The
Defendant's sale of the warranties is misleading because the
furniture is poorly made. This means they can more easily and
unfairly attribute any accidental stain or rip to a product defect,
when there might be cause for overlap between what caused the
damage.

Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC is a furniture manufacturer with a
principal place of business in Manchester, Connecticut. [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

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Wins Dismissal of Cervantes FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL CERVANTES, Plaintiff v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL
OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02164 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

Plaintiff Cervantes has brought the putative class action claiming
that he has been underpaid as an employee of Fire Stone Complete
Auto Care.  He alleges that Fire Stone's parent and affiliate
companies, Defendants Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC ("BRO"),
Bridgestone Americas, Inc. ("BSAM"), and Bridgestone Corp.
("Bridgestone"), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") by failing to pay him
minimum wage and overtime wages.

Cervantes alleges that he worked as a Technician at Fire Stone, one
of the BRO's retail facilities, in Clarksville, Tennessee, from
Feb. 8, 2018, until May 2019.  When Cervantes started working
there, he completed an electronic on-boarding process that required
him to agree to BRO's employee dispute resolution ("EDR") plan.
The EDR plan states that new employees agree to waive their right
to resolve employment disputes through a court case or jury trial
and will instead arbitrate their claims.  The parties agree that
Cervantes electronically signed a one-page document called the "New
Employee Acknowledgment and Agreement to Employee Dispute
Resolution Plan."

In May 2019, Cervantes moved to Illinois and, on May 12, 2019,
started working as a Technician at Fire Stone's Tinley Park
location.  He alleges that he worked five days per week and nine to
ten-and-a-half hours per day.  He further alleges that Fire Stone
pays its employees using a "flat rate" system, also known as pay
"by car."  Many of the tasks Cervantes performed were coded as
"05," meaning that regardless of how long it took him to finish the
job, he would only be paid for half an hour of work.  Cervantes
also alleges that when the business day was slow, he was required
to carry out other services at the facility without pay.

When Cervantes filed the suit alleging violations of the FLSA and
IMWL, BRO moved to dismiss it or, alternatively, to stay it and
compel arbitration.  The Defendants move to compel arbitration and
dismiss the case on the ground that Cervantes previously agreed to
arbitrate any disputes related to his employment.  After the
parties had completed briefing on BRO's motion, BSAM and
Bridgestone moved to join the motion, as well.  Cervantes
challenges both his assent to the EDR agreement and the sufficiency
of Defendants' consideration under the agreement.

Judge Wood finds that the EDR agreement was supported by valid
consideration based on the Defendants' offer of employment and
their agreement to be bound by the outcome of arbitration.
Cervantes electronically signed the EDR agreement, which clearly
stated that he was waiving his right to bring a court case against
his employer in favor of arbitration.  He also manifested his
assent to the terms of the agreement by continuing his employment
with Fire Stone.  The Defendants have presented evidence that their
EDR Plan similarly summarizes its employee arbitration process and
describes the arbitrator's award as "final and binding."  Thus,
under Illinois's objective standard, Cervantes assented to the
arbitration agreement.

The Judge finds that Cervantes signed an agreement stating that he
agreed to resolve any employment-related legal dispute he may have
with Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC through the company's EDR
plan.  By its plain terms, the scope of the EDR is not limited to
Cervantes' employment at one particular retail location but applies
to all his employment-related disputes with BRO.  Cervantes has
failed to present any evidence that the EDR agreement he signed in
Tennessee does not apply to his employment disputes in Illinois.
Thus, Cervantes' present dispute with the Defendants is covered by
the arbitration clause in the EDR agreement he signed in
Clarksville.

The Judge also finds that Cervantes has not presented any evidence
that, for instance, the manager did not provide him enough time to
review the EDR plan or that the Defendants pressured him into
signing it.  Without more evidence that the Defendants or the
hiring manager purposefully misled Cervantes as to the contents of
the EDR agreement, the Judge declines to relieve Cervantes of his
obligation to arbitrate his employment claims under a theory of
estoppel.

Because the Defendants have established that Cervantes agreed to
arbitrate any disputes related to his employment, Judge Wood
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  The dismissal is
without prejudice to Cervantes pursuing his claims in the
appropriate forum.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydaeugx5 from
Leagle.com.


BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Bail Denials in Savino Won't Be Reconsidered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS
NEVES, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v.
STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent of Bristol County House of
Correction in his official capacity, Defendant-Respondent, Case No.
20-10617-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts denied the
motion for reconsideration of bail denials and renewed motion for
release on bail.

For the subject matter of the class action, the Judge holds that
each of the Petitioners is lawfully detained.  He understands that
the denials of bail have been argued to be res judicata in other
proceedings.  The Judge holds that it is improper.  The Court's
determinations are limited to the unique set of circumstances
presented and are not germane to other proceedings--and then only
in the most general sense.

Finally, the Judge observes that the fairly dramatic reduction in
the number of detainees presently being held at the Bristol County
House of Correction calls into question the continued propriety of
treating the matter as a class action since the numerousity
requirement may no longer be met.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8mfwld9 from Leagle.com.


BROWN STRAUSS: Faces Mayorga Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brown Strauss, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Mayorga, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees v. Brown Strauss, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010906 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 28, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over employment-related issues.

Brown Strauss -- https://brownstrauss.com/ -- is a structural steel
service center in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd #120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Phone: (916) 318-6327


BROWNE TRADING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Browne Trading Co.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Browne Trading Co., Case No.
1:20-cv-10967 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Browne Trading Company -- https://www.brownetrading.com/ -- is a
supplier of fine caviar, fresh fish, shellfish, and smoked seafood
to both elite restaurants and home kitchens across the U.S.[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


CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2020, that the Court granted the
defendants motion to dismiss the consolidated purported class
action suit entitled,  In re Campbell Soup Company Securities
Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS.

On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1,
2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint.

The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are
defendants in the Action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the Court granted on November 30,
2020, with leave to amend the complaint.

Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.

CANADA: Indian Day School Claims Filing Deadline Set for July 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alain Bartleman, writing for Anishinabek News, reports that 11
years after Garry McLean launched his class action lawsuit on
behalf of those who suffered abuse at Federal Indian Day Schools,
compensation is finally coming. For Survivors of the Indian Day
School system, or IDS, and for those who may be asked to assist
Survivors or Estate Representatives, Anishinabek News is publishing
a series of informational articles intended to bring clarity to the
settlement process. These articles address topics such as accessing
compensation for persons who died after July 2007, potential claims
against the Provincial Government and religious authorities, and
whether to use your own legal counsel or lawyer. If you are a
Survivor of an IDS, you have access to a free telephone hotline
that can provide advice on the settlement process. You may reach it
at 1 (888) 221-2898. Alternatively, Survivors and Estate
Representatives may also contact Gowling W.L.G., the law firm that
represents the claimants, at no charge to themselves.

A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which an individual, known
as the representative plaintiff, sues on behalf of a defined group
of individuals, known as a "class", who are linked together by a
common trait. In this case, the "class" consists of persons who
attended a Federal Indian Day School. A complete list of the
schools in question can be found here. The class also includes the
estates of those persons who attended an IDS, but died either on or
after July 31, 2007. The Anishinabek News will be publishing
another article, covering how an estate can claim compensation for
a family member who suffered abuse at an IDS, over the holiday
break. Persons who do not know if they are a member of the class
can also call Gowling W.L.G. at 1 (844) 539-3815 at no charge to
themselves.

Unlike most lawsuits, where persons must opt into a claim to be
listed as plaintiffs, in a class action, persons are deemed to be
in it unless they opt-out. Members of a class can either opt-out of
the lawsuit or are deemed to have opted out. While opting out of a
class action lawsuit preserves one's right to sue the defendant of
the original claim, it also removes the right for a person to
obtain compensation along with the members of his or her class.
Here, if a Survivor attended a scheduled IDS, that Survivor must
have opted-out of the settlement agreement by November 18, 2019, or
alternatively, have launched and not discontinued (meaning formally
abandoned) a claim against the Government of Canada by November 18,
2019. It is important to note that this class action only covers
claims made against the federal government for having run the
schools listed in the link above. Nothing prevents claims against
provincial governments or religious institutions such as the
Catholic Church or United Church for similar facts. Launching a
claim against those institutions will not mean that a Survivor will
be deemed to have opted-out of the IDS settlement process, and will
not impact that Survivor's right to compensation under the IDS
settlement process.

The Federal Court of Canada accepted Canada's settlement offer of
paying Survivors compensation ranging from $10,000 to $200,000. The
amount of the compensation paid will depend on the type of abuse
that an individual suffered while at IDS. Canada has also promised
to invest $200 million in the "McLean Day School Settlement
Corporation", a corporation that provides, in the words of
Indigenous Services Canada, "healing, wellness, education,
language, culture and commemoration for class members and their
communities." Finally, Canada has also agreed to pay a fixed amount
to Gowling W.L.G. to cover their legal expenses and fees, and to
provide ongoing legal support for Survivors to access
compensation.

To access compensation, Survivors or the representatives of a
Survivor's estate must fill out and submit the appropriate claims
form by no later than July 13, 2022. A link to the claims form may
be found here. The calculation for the payout is determined in
tranches depending on the severity of the abuse that an individual
suffered. Because of the nature of the questions asked in the form,
Survivors may wish to seek counselling or support to help them fill
out the form. Survivors can access a mental support hotline at
1-855-242-3310. The hotline is open 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. A chat line can also be reached at this address. Survivors or
Estate Representatives with questions about the settlement process
should either contact their local band office for more information
or contact Gowling W.L.G at 1 (844) 539-3815. They can also contact
the general information line mentioned above at 1 (888) 221-2898.
There is no charge for calling any of these numbers. [GN]


CAPITAL MEDICAL: Katz TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C.,
d/b/a JUVA SKIN AND LASER CENTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL MEDICAL EDUCATION, LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company, Case No.
3:20-cv-02524-JMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certify the following Class:

   "all persons who (1) on or after July 3, 2016, (2) were sent,
   by the Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, (3) a
   telephone facsimile message, (4) from whom Defendant claims
   they obtained prior express permission or invitation to send
   those faxes in the same manner as the Defendant claim they
   obtained prior express consent to fax the Plaintiff, or for
   whom the Defendant has no prior express permission or
   invitation."

This case challenges Defendant Capital Medical Education, LLC's
("CME") widespread violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005,
specifically the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited fax
advertisements.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 24,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2Mca7ngat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret A. Collins, Esq.
          P.S.L.G., LLC
          D/B/A PALMETTO STATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2241 Bush River Road
          Columbia, SC 29210
          Office: (803) 708-7442
          Facsimile: (803) 753-9352

               - and -

          Steven Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@ppeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Wolf Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janis Wolf, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. Carpenter, Hazlewood,
Delgado & Bolen, LLP, Case No. CV-20-00957-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case to
proceed on behalf of the following class:

   "all persons within the United States whose credit report
   Carpenter, Hazelwood, Delgado & Bolen, LLP obtained
   in the two-year period preceding the filing of the
   complaint in this action up to and through the date of class
   certification without a permissible purpose in violation of
   15 U.S.C. section 1681b(a) and against whom Carpenter did not
   first obtain a judgment."

Plaintiff Wolf brought the action on behalf of consumers whose
credit reports Carpenter obtained, without consent and prior to
obtaining judgments against those consumers, in violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because Carpenter uses this tactic as a
precursor to hundreds, if not thousands, of collection lawsuits it
files each year, certification of this case as a class action is
appropriate, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff alleges that Carpenter's practice constitutes willful
violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(a), and accordingly, the
Plaintiff and class members are entitled to statutory damages under
section 1681n.

The Defendant is a full service law firm representing businesses,
nonprofits, individuals and community associations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 28,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37WpEjf
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
          Ashley C. Hill, Esq.
          Thomas E. Raccuia, Esq.
          Jesse Vassallo Lopez, Esq.
          DESSAULES LAW GROUP
          5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-5400
          Facsimile: (602) 274-5401
          E-mail: jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com
                  ahill@dessauleslaw.com
                  traccuia@dessauleslaw.com
                  jvassallo@dessauleslaw.com

CASTLEROCK FARMING:  June 15 Case Conference in Morales Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case conference has been set for June 15, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in
the case styled as Domingo Munoz Morales, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juan Carlos
Arrellano Medina, Castlerock Farming LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Castlerock Farming and Transport, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company and Castlerock Farm Holdings,
LLC a California Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-20-102941 (Cal., Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 2020).

The type of case is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.

Castlerock Farming LLC is in the Grapes, Machine Harvesting
Services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
   McCarter & English LLP
   4 Gateway Center
   100 Mulberry Street
   Newark, NJ 07102
   Tel: 1-973-622-4444
   Email: djbrown@mccarter.com



CBDMD INC: Bid to Nix Davis Purported Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
cbdMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the purported class action suit initiated by Cynthia
Davis, remains pending.

In December 2019, Cynthia Davis filed a purported collective and
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against cbdMD and certain of its
competitors alleging violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for
Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability and Declaratory Relief.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the California
laws by unlawfully selling and marketing mislabeled products which
have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory, nominal and
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, as
well as equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of
revenues. The complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective
action," and, alternatively, as a "class action" under the laws of
the State of California.

cbdMD said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action and in
April 2020 we filed a motion for dismissal which remains pending."

cbdMD, Inc. was originally founded in 2015 as an innovative
branding and marketing company with a focus on lifestyle-based
brands. In December 2018 pursuant to a two-step merger, the company
acquired Cure Based Development LLC following the passage of the
United States Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known
as the "Farm Bill", which contained a permanent declassification of
cannabidiol (CBD) as a controlled substance under federal law. As a
result of that transaction, the company owns and operates the
nationally recognized CBD brand cbdMD which now represents the
company's focus and substantially all of its revenues. The company
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

CBDMD INC: Facing Warshawsky Purported Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
cbdMD, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company is defending
a purported collective and class action lawsuit initiated by
Michael Warshawsky and Michael Steinhauser

On October 2020, Michael Warshawsky and Michael Steinhauser filed a
purported collective and class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against
cbdMD alleging the personal identifiable information of customers
was compromised via data breaches due to our negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and failure to protect customer's data.


The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory, nominal and
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, as
well as equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of
revenues.

The complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action," and,
alternatively, as a "class action" under the laws of the State of
North Carolina.

cbdMD said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

cbdMD, Inc. was originally founded in 2015 as an innovative
branding and marketing company with a focus on lifestyle-based
brands. In December 2018 pursuant to a two-step merger, the company
acquired Cure Based Development LLC following the passage of the
United States Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, commonly known
as the "Farm Bill", which contained a permanent declassification of
cannabidiol (CBD) as a controlled substance under federal law. As a
result of that transaction, the company owns and operates the
nationally recognized CBD brand cbdMD which now represents the
company's focus and substantially all of its revenues. The company
is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

CD PROJEKT: Faces Trampe Suit Over Decline in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW TRAMPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CD PROJEKT S.A.; ADAM MICHAL KICINSKI; PIOTR
MARCIN NIELUBOWICZ; and MICHAŁ NOWAKOWSKI, Defendants, Case
2:20-cv-11627 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 24, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded CD Projekt securities between January 16, 2020 and
December 17, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on January 16, 2020, CD Projekt
released a statement announcing that though Cyberpunk 2077 was
"complete and playable", the game's release date would be delayed
until September 7, 2020, as the Company "needed more time to finish
playtesting, fixing and polishing."

On April 8, 2020, the Company published its Annual Report for
fiscal year 2019. On September 4, 2020 CD Projekt published their
financial results for the first half of 2020 via press release. On
November 25, 2020, CD Projekt published their financial results for
the third quarter of 2020 via press release.

The Defendants made false and misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was
virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation
systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony
would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony,
Microsoft and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds for
the game; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational
and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

CD Projekt SA is a holding company that conducts its business
activities through its subsidiaries companies whose operations are
divided into two segments, videogame development and digital
distribution of videogame. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CD PROJEKT: Faces Two Class Actions Over Cyberpunk 2077 Video Game
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Giovanni, writing for HappyGamer, reports that as shocking
as the title sounds, it can't be further from the truth as CD
Projekt executives received disturbing news on the very eve of
Christmas. Two different law firms, the NYC-based Rosen Law Firm,
and the LA-based The Schall Law Firm filed class-action lawsuits
against CD Projekt alleging that the studio misinformed investors
in regards to the newly released Cyberpunk 2077.

According to one of the Law firms, precisely The Schall Law Firm,
there were violations of the 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 made public by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Take a look at an excerpt from the lawsuit filings below:

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CD Projekt's hotly-anticipated video game
"Cyberpunk 2077" was essentially unplayable on current-generation
Xbox and PlayStation consoles due to an overwhelming number of bugs
and other problems. Sony, Microsoft, and the Company were forced to
offer refunds to customers who bought "Cyberpunk 2077," resulting
in Sony removing the game from its PlayStation Store. The Company's
reputation was harmed significantly by the botched launch of
"Cyberpunk 2077." Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about CD Projekt,
investors suffered damages.

Also, the press release sent out by Rosen Law Firm features a
synonymous statement:

"According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or PlayStation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the PlayStation Store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages."

The lawsuits came as a result of investors purchased CD Projekt's
stock between January 16th to December 17th, 2020 thinking the
value of the stock would have spiked due to the information given
to them, which turned out false.

Surprisingly, both Law Firms created an online case form for those
affected. However, they will have to contact Rosen Law Firm and The
Schall Law Firm before the end of February next year, precisely on
February 22nd.

In retrospect, the very same law firm filed class-action lawsuits
against Activision Blizzard after the organization split with
Bungie in early 2019. Yet, no updates have been released on those
lawsuits. [GN]


CD PROJEKT: Misleads Investors About Cyberpunk 2077 Game, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lamont, writing for mobilesyrup, reports that an investor
filed a lawsuit against developer and publisher CD Projekt Red
(CDPR), alleging the company failed to tell investors the recently
released Cyberpunk 2077 was "virtually unplayable."

Plaintiff Andrew Trampe hopes to bring other investors on board
with the lawsuit, which would make it a class action. The suit
alleges that CDPR misled investors about the state of Cyberpunk,
instead marketing it as a success with only a few minor issues.

According to Bloomberg, CDPR says it will "vigorously" defend
itself against the lawsuit.

Cyberpunk 2077 launched in a bad state with numerous bugs, glitches
and other issues. While some platforms fared better than others,
the issues were pervasive across gaming platforms. Older consoles
got the worst of it -- Cyberpunk was basically unplayable on
PlayStation 4 and Xbox One consoles. Sony opted to pull the game
from the PlayStation Store, and many retailers adjusted refund
policies to allow dissatisfied customers to return the game.

On top of that, CDPR launched a campaign to help customers get
their money back if a retailer chose not to help them.

Despite the controversy around Cyberpunk, CDPR recently estimated
that it sold 13 million copies across all platforms. That estimate
included most returns as well as the over 8 million pre-orders
Cyberpunk received. The Verge notes that those figures make
Cyberpunk one of the best selling games of the year, plus CDPR said
earlier in December that it already recouped the game's development
costs. [GN]



CD PROJEKT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Narayan Liu, writing for CBR, reports that CD Projekt Red,
developer of the recently released Cyberpunk 2077, has been hit
with a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors.

Rosen Law Firm, a New York-based firm, has reportedly filed a
lawsuit on behalf of investors, alleging violations of federal
securities law. Lawyer stated that CD Projekt Red made false claims
about the recently released video game. Specifically, the developer
failed to make consumers aware that Cyberpunk 2077 was "virtually
unplayable" on last-gen consoles. A class has not yet been
certified.

The lawsuit cites conference calls, one of which took place in
January. In it, CD Projekt Red president and joint CEO Adam
Kiciński assured investors outright that there were no issues with
the last-gen version of Cyberpunk 2077, claiming instead that only
optimization was required. The amount CD Projekt Red would be
required to pay for damages has not yet been revealed.

In addition to the class action, CD Projekt Red is currently facing
several potential lawsuits over Cyberpunk 2077, from both the U.S.
and Poland. The developer has released a number of statements,
apologizing for the video game and promising last-gen console users
that future patches would help improve the experience. A patch has
since been released but evidently failed to address some of the
game's central issues.

The issues have caused many consumers to request refunds from
retailers. GameStop and the PlayStation Store have obliged, with
the latter going so far as to remove the game entirely. CD Projekt
Red has previously suggested that it aims to tend to the issues and
have the game return to the PlayStation Store. In spite of the
current situation, the Polish developer has reported that Cyberpunk
2077 has sold more than 13 million copies worldwide, not including
refunded games.

Kiciński previously admitted that the developer had neglected the
PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, stating, "After 3 delays, we as the
Management Board were too focused on releasing the game. . . We
underestimated the scale and complexity of the issues, we ignored
the signals about the need for additional time to refine the game
on the base last-gen consoles. It was the wrong approach and
against our business philosophy. On top of that, during the
campaign, we showed the game mostly on PCs."

Developed by CD Projekt Red, Cyberpunk 2077 is available now on
PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Google Stadia and PC. [GN]


CD PROJEKT: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against CD Projekt
S.A. ("CD Projekt" or "the Company") (OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January
16, 2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 22, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/350efNJ to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CD Projekt's hotly-anticipated video game
"Cyberpunk 2077" was essentially unplayable on current-generation
Xbox and PlayStation consoles due to an overwhelming number of bugs
and other problems. Sony, Microsoft, and the Company were forced to
offer refunds to customers who bought "Cyberpunk 2077," resulting
in Sony removing the game from its PlayStation Store. The Company's
reputation was harmed significantly by the botched launch of
"Cyberpunk 2077." Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about CD Projekt,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to File Amended Complaint in McGlone Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint in the class action suit
initiated by Ursula McGlone, is pending.

On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site
(including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge
Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone,
Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through
their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (GDP) site.

The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all
current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the
Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the
Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present.

The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019 and on January 10,
2020, to add additional plaintiffs and new claims.

On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of
the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to
the next stage of the litigation process.

On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three
of the individual plaintiffs. On September 29, 2020, the defendants
filed their response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint.

The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.

Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be
covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Nuclear
Industries Indemnity Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have
provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification
under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions.

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.

CENTRUS ENERGY: Dismissal of Matthews Class Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in the class action suit initiated by James
Matthews, is pending.

On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other
DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) site were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed by James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield
Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate of A.R., and others similarly
situated, in the Common Pleas Court of Pike County, Ohio.

On January 3, 2020, the complaint was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio for adjudication. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged off-site
contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth
GDP site.

The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contended that the ongoing and
continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members
were not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the
Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims
concerning traditional-style state regulation."

On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp.
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because
the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the
Price-Anderson Act which preempts state law.

On August 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Company and Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.

CENTRUS ENERGY: Facing Walburn Class Action in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
named defendant in a class action suit initiated by Jeffrey
Walburn.

On September 3, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., nine other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (GDP) site and eleven individuals in their personal
capacity some of whom are current and former U.S Department of
Energy employees were named as defendants in a class action
complaint filed by Jeffrey Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr., Kimberly
M. Lawson, James A. Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs, Donald Slone,
Vicki P. Slone, Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl R. Hartley,
Heather R. Hartley, Vina Colley, Antony Preston, David B. Rose,
Michael E. Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue Brogdon
(deceased), Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and Jon Doe(s),
and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint alleges that the named defendants conspired and
concealed nuclear incidents in violation of the Price-Anderson Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and other
state claims.

The complainants seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief
arising from economic losses, property losses, and non-economic
damages resulting from toxic and radioactive releases from the DOE
Portsmouth, Ohio site.

As of this filing, neither the Company nor Enrichment Corp. have
been served with the complaint.

The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.

CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action
suit initiated by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick has been
voluntarily dismissed.

On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and four other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site
were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ray
Pritchard and Sharon Melick in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. T

he complaint sought damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (GDP) site.

The Pritchard Plaintiffs were seeking to represent a class of all
current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the
Portsmouth GDP site.

On September 11, 2020, the Pritchard Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the compliant.

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014. Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CHASE ISSUANCE: Dismissal of Petersen Class Action Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 13, 2020, that
the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on the order of dismissal in Petersen et al. v. Chase Card
Funding, LLC et al., is still pending.  

In June 2019, a lawsuit Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC
et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019) was filed against
Chase Card Funding, LLC, a Delaware statutory trust, which is also
referred to in this report as the "issuing entity."

The putative class action was brought by several New York residents
with credit card accounts originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association, which is referred to in this report as
"JPMorgan Chase Bank," or its predecessor Chase Bank USA, N.A.
(neither of which are named as a defendant), who alleged that
JPMorgan Chase Bank securitized their credit card receivables in
the issuing entity.

The complaint contended that the defendants are required to comply
with New York state's usury law under the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland
Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2505 (June 27, 2016) because they are non-bank entities that are
not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in August
2019 and in January 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation that the defendants' motion be granted.

On September 21, 2020, the district judge issued an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

In October 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Chase Card Funding cannot predict the outcome of the appeal and if
decided adversely, investors may suffer a delay in payment or loss
on their notes.

Chase Issuance Trust operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt securities to
repay existing credit facilities, refinance indebtedness, and for
acquisition purposes.


CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., remains stayed
pending the filing of the petition for review in the case, Muransky
v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. was named as a
defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts.

The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages.

WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes
the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court
issued an order certifying the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court's ruling that the
plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On April 19, 2018,
WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit. In the
meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings in the
case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit.

On August 2, 2018, the District Court reopened the case for
purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed settlement. On October
22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with the
District Court, along with a motion to stay the District Court's
consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh Circuit's
final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., in which
the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued October 3, 2018 and
supplemented on April 22, 2019, that the display of the first six
and last four digits of a credit or debit card number on a
customer's receipt given at the point of sale establishes a
"concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III standing,
enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit.

The District Court granted the motion to stay on November 15, 2018.
A petition for rehearing on the October 2018 Muransky opinion was
granted and on February 25, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit heard oral
argument in the en banc appeal.

On October 27, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, issued
its opinion in Muransky that the plaintiff did not have standing to
sue.

The plaintiff in the Muransky case has until January 2021 to
petition for review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision with the
Supreme Court.

If the Eleventh Circuit's decision is not changed by the Supreme
Court, the parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to
the Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval.

If the Eleventh Circuit's decision is reviewed and changed by the
Supreme Court, it would bind the District Court in the Altman case
and likely establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain
her lawsuit against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted
and the proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court.
The proposed settlement would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.
    
Chico's FAS said, "However, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM
were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the
ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market, and Soma brand names. The company also sells
its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS, Inc.
was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida.

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Rael Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 23, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
awaiting the court's final approval of the settlement in the case,
Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in
February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims.

The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class
of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive
relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs
and signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to
settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S.
who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from
February 11, 2012 through the date of preliminary approval by the
court of the settlement.

The settlement provides for merchandise vouchers for class members
who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees and
expenses and claims administration expenses.

On January 28, 2020, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject
to the court's final approval and, if approved, will result in the
settlement of all claims through the date of the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Children's Place said, "However, if the settlement is
ultimately rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to
litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed
settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5 million in its
consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017."

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The Company was formerly known as The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc. and changed its name to The Children's
Place, Inc. in June 2014.  The Children's Place, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.

CHLN INC: Faces Seybert Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimber Seybert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHLN, INC., LANDRY'S, INC., and LANDRY'S PAYROLL, INC.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02529-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2020) is brought
on behalf of those who have worked for the Defendants as servers,
waitstaff, bartenders and other job positions with similar job
duties, and have been subject to the Defendants' service fee
policies and practices for civil penalties resulting from
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied payment
for gratuity payments that comply with California law. This case
implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and practices,
which fail to properly compensate non-exempt service workers for
gratuities paid to them as tip wages. The Defendants impose
mandatory gratuities on the sale of food and beverages, but fail to
distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities to non-managerial
service employees as required by California law.

In addition, the Plaintiff was and is required to work additional
time outside of their scheduled shifts to keep up with the demands
of the job. The Defendants were and are aware that the Plaintiff is
required to perform this off-the-clock work, but fail to pay them
at the applicable hourly rates for this work time.

The Plaintiff bring this claim to challenge the Defendants'
policies and practices of: failing to pay the Plaintiff all tip
wages owed from gratuity payments; failing to pay the Plaintiff all
minimum wages owed; failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours
worked; failing to authorize and permit the Plaintiff to take rest
breaks to which they are entitled by law; failing to pay the
Plaintiff, with vested vacation wages upon separation of
employment; failing to provide the Plaintiff accurate, itemized
wage statements; and failing to timely pay the Plaintiff full wages
upon termination or resignation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a service worker by the Defendants at
Chart House in Cardiff, California from August 2007 through May
2020.

The Defendants operate a chain of restaurants in California,
including a Chart House in Cardiff, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 338-2560
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: rhecht@schneiderwallace.com


CHOCOLATE PIZZA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chocolate Pizza
Company Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chocolate Pizza
Company Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10973 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Chocolate Pizza Company -- https://www.chocolatepizza.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of gourmet chocolate specialties in the U.S.[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


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Court Junks Gottlieb Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the purported class action suit initiated by Mark Gottlieb,
has been granted.

On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against Jonathan Duskin; Seth
Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel
Waller and Laura Weil, B. Riley FBR, Inc. and B. Riley Financial
Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, on behalf
of himself and all stockholders who held shares as of December 20,
2018.

The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of
loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of
2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company and seeks
unspecified damages for shareholders' lost opportunity.

The lawsuit further alleges that B. Riley, the independent
investment banking firm retained by the Company to assist it with
an analysis of the unsolicited bid, aided and abetted the asserted
breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named Directors.

The Company believes the Complaint is without merit and pursued a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

This motion was granted by the Court of Chancery on November 20,
2020.

Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel and
accessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's
Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks
Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.

CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Jones Loses Bid for Preliminary Injunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RHONDA JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. VICTOR
HILL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clayton County,
Georgia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-CV-02791-JPB (N.D. Ga.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied
the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Jones,
Michael Singleton and Barry Watkins.

On July 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs -- medically vulnerable inmates
held at the Clayton County Jail -- filed suit, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, against Hill, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia; Roland
Boehrer, in his official capacity as Chief Deputy; Terrance Gibson,
in his official capacity as Jail Administrator; Kevin Thomas, in
his official capacity as Jail Security Operations Section
Commander; and Maurice Johnson, in his official capacity as Jail
Administrative Operations Section Commander.

The Plaintiffs, who characterize the action as one to "enforce
disease prevention measures and to protect people who are uniquely
susceptible to the effects of COVID-19," brought the following
claims: (1) unconstitutional punishment in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; (2) unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments; (3) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act;
(4) violations of the Rehabilitation Act; and (5) a Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2241 and 2243.
Within their Class Action Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, the Plaintiffs simultaneously requested preliminary
injunctive relief. On July 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs' request was
denied.

The Plaintiffs renewed their request for injunctive relief by
filing the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 27,
2020. In the motion, they ask the Court to order the Defendants to
create and file a reasonably specific written plan -- developed in
consultation with the Georgia Department of Public Health and/or a
qualified medical or public health expert in preventing and
mitigating the spread of infectious diseases -- that addresses
several matters, including educating detainees, staff members,
contractors and/or vendors about COVID-19, screening detainees,
staff members, contractors, vendors and/or visitors to the Jail for
symptoms of COVID-19 upon entry to the Jail, and maintaining an
adequate supply of COVID-19 tests and administering them to all
individuals booked into the Jail, to a random, representative
sample of all detainees and staff members at least once every 14
days, and to all detainees, staff members, contractors and/or
vendors suspected of being infected with the virus that causes
COVID-19.

District Judge J.P. Boulee states that in the case, the parties
presented dramatically different accounts regarding the Defendants'
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants, who presented
their evidence through their own testimony and declarations, an
inmate, a CorrectHealth, LLC employee and an expert, essentially
maintain: that inmates wear masks 100% of the time; that inmates
maintain social distancing to the maximum extent possible; that
common areas are consistently cleaned with disinfectants multiple
times per day; that inmates are tested immediately upon request or
upon exhibiting symptoms; and that quarantining procedures are in
place and followed.

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs, presenting their evidence
through their own declarations, testimony and declarations of other
incarcerated inmates, a former CorrectHealth employee and experts,
principally contend that inmates are not provided with masks or
soap, do not have access to prompt medical care or COVID-19 testing
and face retaliation if they complain about the lack of care.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to show both the
objective component (substantial risk of serious harm) necessary to
establish a deliberate indifference claim and that the Defendants
had subjective knowledge of that harm. At this stage of the
proceedings, however, especially given the conflicting evidence, it
is not persuaded the Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that
the Defendants disregarded the risk of serious harm by conduct more
than mere negligence. Without this showing, the Plaintiffs cannot
establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Given the high threshold necessary to show deliberate indifference
and the proactive measures implemented by the Jail, however
imperfect the implementation of those measures may be, the
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits, Judge Boulee opines. Judge Boulee notes that the
decision is not meant to suggest that the evidence, especially
after it is more fully developed, could not be found to be
sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Rather, he
finds only that based on the present record, and under the
Plaintiffs' burden, the evidence before the Court is not adequate
to merit injunctive relief.

Since the Plaintiffs fail to show a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits as to their deliberate indifference claim,
the Court will not address whether the Plaintiffs will be
irreparably harmed should an injunction not issue or whether the
balance of equities favors injunctive relief, citing Church v. City
of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994).

Judge Boulee opines that the Court recognizes that the potential
spread of COVID-19 in the country's jails and prisons, including
Clayton County's, is an urgent problem -- one with potentially
grave consequence.  However, the Plaintiffs have failed to show a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their
constitutional claim and, as such, have failed to demonstrate that
they are entitled to a preliminary injunction as a matter of law.
Ultimately, after thoroughly reviewing the record and the evidence,
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 24, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxorpkn from Leagle.com.


COFFEE MEETS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coffee Meets Bagel,
Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-10984 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Coffee Meets Bagel -- https://coffeemeetsbagel.com/ -- is a San
Francisco–based dating and social networking service.[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


COLLECTION BUREAU: Weisberger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIMON WEISBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON
VALLEY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06259
(E.D.N.Y., December 25, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a misleading debt
collection letter to the Plaintiff by failing to mention the
possibility of reducing the total debt balance significantly if the
Plaintiff would return the equipment. By listing an equipment
balance and not stating the plain and simple way in which the
Plaintiff can remedy this balance, the Defendant has deceptively
misled the Plaintiff by implying that the equipment balance is
fixed and cannot be remedied or mitigated.

Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. is a debt collection
agency located at 155 N Plank Road, Newburgh, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                                                                   

         Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com

COLORADO: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Conditions Amid COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Sherry, writing for CPR, reports that in the weeks since
being diagnosed with COVID-19 in prison, 55-year-old John Peckham
said he has been moved around to several housing units -- sometimes
in the middle of the night -- where he said sick inmates and
healthy inmates had to share toilets.

That's one of many troublesome things he's experienced as the
pandemic has tightened its grip on state prisons in recent months.
He's been given sack lunches with portions, he described as in line
with what a "preschooler" would eat, not a grown man.

And, Peckham, an avid reader who is incarcerated at Arrowhead
Correctional Center in Canon City for embezzlement and theft, said
he hasn't been able to get new books ordered by his family during
lockdowns that have lasted for weeks at a time.

"We couldn't go outside, we couldn't exercise," he said. "It's been
extremely difficult."

A Department of Corrections spokeswoman said the state agency
hasn't taken the lockdown restrictions lightly.

"These are not punitive actions; they are public health measures,"
said Annie Skinner, in an emailed statement. "Inmates will continue
to remain with their cohorted groups until medical personnel feels
that it is safe to adjust those cohort groups, and at that time,
the inmates may be moved back to their previous housing location,
although that may not always be possible."

Peckham is part of a class action lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis
that argues he isn't doing enough to promote safety inside
Colorado's prisons throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly
by taking steps to make it possible for inmates to effectively
socially distance. Nineteen inmates have died and more than 6,800
incarcerated people have tested positive this year.

Peckham said guards told inmates it would be easier if everyone
just got the disease because then they wouldn't have to worry about
it anymore.

Skinner said the decisions regarding cohorting are done with
guidance from health care professionals.

"CDOC tries to limit movement whenever possible, but in the case of
cohorting, movement may be done in an effort to mitigate the spread
of the virus," she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking a state judge to issue
a preliminary injunction forcing Polis to do more to lower disease
risk for the roughly 15,000 inmates inside the state's prisons.

ACLU lawyers argue the safest, and easiest, way to do this would be
to let people like Peckham, who was sentenced for a non-violent
offense and has somewhere stable to go on the outside, out on
parole early to reduce the population numbers.

"There is an urgent, urgent problem in the Department of
Corrections. The virus is infecting many prisoners. Prisoners are
dying, they're scared, they're frantic. It's viscerally upsetting,"
said Mark Silverstein, "And we're asking the court to say this is
an emergency . . . and there is a substantial risk of serious
harm."

In a flurry of filings, Polis' lawyers at the state Attorney
General's office, have argued that he is not the proper target for
the advocates.

They also say that under the state's constitution, it would violate
the separation of powers for a judge to order a governor to use the
powers of his office in a particular way -- particularly by
requiring him to let people out of prison.

"While the judiciary may order the governor to cease engaging in
affirmative conduct that it has found unconstitutional, it cannot
tell the governor when or how to exercise his discretionary
powers," lawyers for Polis wrote. "Such an attempt would invade the
governor's exclusive authority."

While the judge has yet to rule on whether the request for a
preliminary injunction can move forward, Silverstein noted there's
another thing a judge could require to create more safety: that
state officials as swiftly as possible vaccinate prisoners.

Currently, prisoners in Colorado aren't prioritized in the state's
vaccination plan.

They were initially -- everyone in "congregate," or group,
residential settings were to get the vaccine after health care
workers -- but Polis changed course after some conservatives
criticized the plan for putting convicted felons ahead of
non-incarcerated people.

Polis then clarified to CPR's Colorado Matters that prisoners would
be in the same pecking order as everyone else, so 65-year-old
prisoners will get the vaccine at the same time as 65-year-old
non-incarcerated people.

That change has been criticized by several groups, including the
Colorado Black Democratic Legislative Caucus, which sent a letter
urging Polis to return to the original priority order.

"Communities of color, and Black people specifically, are over
represented in the prison population and over represented in COVID
deaths. An equitable vaccination dissemination plan MUST prioritize
and value the life of the incarcerated," said Democratic Rep.
Leslie Herod in a statement.

State epidemiologist Rachel Herlihy said in mid-December that she
was awaiting additional "federal guidance" on vaccine orders and
that they were still occupied with getting health care workers
taken care of first.

"At this point, we're primarily focused on this first phase and
making sure that we're really prioritizing the groups in this first
phase," she said.

The federal government has not specifically put out any guidance on
prisoners, but a dozen or so states have prioritized incarcerated
people in the first few phases -- above younger people in the
general population -- because outbreaks in prisons nationwide have
been egregious.

Two of Colorado's neighbors, Nebraska and New Mexico, are taking
that approach. Both prioritize inmates because it's so difficult
for them to socially distance while incarcerated.

State prison populations have, indeed, dropped over the course of
the pandemic. A report presented to the Joint Budget Committee
earlier in December said that the vacancy rate in the state's
prisons has increased from 1 percent in February to 25 percent in
November of this year.

Last spring, Polis issued a short-lived executive order allowing
for some early releases through a "special needs parole" program.
Under that order, the Department of Corrections released almost 150
people in the hope of creating more distancing inside the
facilities.

Peckham was one of the applicants. He said his family and his
friends were told he had been approved, but nothing ever happened.
And then he was denied with no reason and hasn't heard anything
since. He said he's talked to many inmates who were denied special
needs parole, and feels like the system has been set up for
failure. [GN]


CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit
entitled, Uddin v. Conn's, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705, has been
dismissed.

On May 15, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the company and two of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
captioned Uddin v. Conn's, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705.

On November 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice. The court entered an order recognizing
the dismissal on November 17, 2020.

Conn's, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company with no
independent assets or operations other than its investments in its
subsidiaries. Conn's is a leading specialty retailer that offers a
broad selection of quality, branded durable consumer goods and
related services in addition to proprietary credit solutions for
its core credit-constrained consumers. The company is based in
Woodland, Texas.

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smith Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01754-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 23, 2020), is brought under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in response to the "abundant
evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt
collection practices by many debt collectors."

Prior to July 24, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred by
Plaintiff to T-Mobile, USA. The T-Mobile USA obligation arose out
of transactions in which the funds obtained from the creditor were
used primarily for personal, family or household purposes,
specifically telecommunication services. The alleged T-Mobile, USA
obligation is a "debt" as defined by the FDCPA. T-Mobile, USA is a
"creditor" as defined by the FDCPA. T-Mobile, USA contracted with
the Defendant Convergent to collect the alleged debt.

On July 24, 2020, Defendant Convergent sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter regarding the alleged debt currently owed to
Defendant T Mobile, USA. The Letter states: "Our client has advised
us that collection activity will stop if you pay 50% of your total
balance due. The amount you would need to pay is $443.39. The
amount of $ 443.39 must be received in our office by an agreed upon
date. If you are interested in taking advantage of this offer, call
our office within 60 days of this letter. Once the offer amount is
paid, the account will be returned to T-Mobile, USA. Please note,
the offered amount does not satisfy the full balance and the
remaining balance will be reported to T-Mobile, USA. We are not
obligated to renew this offer."

The Letter is deceptive because it implies that in exchange of 50%
of the balance the consumer will achieve some form of settlement,
when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement the letter
is offering. The Letter states that T-Mobile will recall the
account and cease all collection activity but does not clarify what
will occur with the rest of the balance and whether the rest of the
balance would be collected by another collection company in the
future. Further, the Letter does not clearly state that the account
will be reinstated upon payment of 50% of the balance.

The Letter was deceptive and misleading to the Plaintiff, and to
any consumer receiving it, by implying that paying 50% would
achieve results akin to a settlement offer, when in reality,
Defendant's offer contains no significant benefits and is unclear
to what the benefits exist at all. As a result of the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices, the
Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware, County of
Kent.

Convergent is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the
FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Phone: (302) 722-6885
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


CORE & MAIN: Perez Must File Class Certification Bid by May 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISHMAEL PEREZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. CORE & MAIN LP, a Florida limited
partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01821-MCS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge MarK C. Scarsi
entered an order that:

   --  the Plaintiff shall file its Motion for class
       certification by May 3, 2021;

   --  the Defendant shall file its Opposition to the
       Plaintiff's  motion for class certification by May 24,
       2021;

   --  the Plaintiff shall file his Reply in Support of his
       motion for class certification by June 7, 2021;

   --  the hearing on the Motion for class certification is set
       for June 21, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.; and

   --  class certification discovery shall be completed by April
       26, 2021.

Core & Main, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a U.S.
distributor of water, sewer, and fire protection products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rDNnN0 at no extra charge.[CC]

CORECIVIC INC: Order on Class Notice Plan in Gomez Suit Issued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California has issued an order on the proposed
Class Notice plan in the case, SYLVESTER OWINO, JONATHAN GOMEZ, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, AND RELATED
CROSS ACTION, Case No. 3:17-cv-1112-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.).

The Court previously issued an order on the proposed Class Notice
plan.  As part of that order, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to
further supplement their class notice plan disclosures.  Pursuant
to that order, the Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Proposed
Content for Class Notices, and the Defendant filed its objections.

Magistrate Judge Stormes ordered the Plaintiffs to make the
following modifications by Dec. 31, 2020, and provide the Defendant
with any updated material by the same date:

   A. As to the URL and website mockup:

      1. The URL will read www.coreciviclaborclassaction.com,
         assuming the URL is available.  The URL should also be
         blocked and domain deleted once a final judgment is
         entered in the case.

      2. The website as launched cannot include any audio or
         video.

      3. The website should include a Spanish translation of all
         content, similar to the way it has been implemented for
         the website www.geoadelantoclassaction.com, where users
         can push a key for a Spanish version of the current page
         they are viewing.  The Court does not intend to review
         any further translations.  It expects the Plaintiffs to
         be accurate in their translations and to provide a
         declaration to that effect.

      4. The website will not have any image on its home page.

      5. The text will instead read "Were you forced to work
         against your will, or did you participate in a Voluntary
         Work Program in California?"

      6. The FAQ #7 answer will be amended to include at the end:
         "However, you may be called as a witness by either
         party, in which case you must attend."

      7. The FAQ #9 text should be modified to the following:

         (1) National Forced Labor Class: You were detained at
             any CoreCivic facility in the United States any time
             between December 23, 2008 and the present, AND you
             were forced or coerced to clean areas of the
             facility outside of your personal living area under
             threat of punishment. You are included even if you
             got paid for this work.

         (2) California Forced Labor Class: You were detained at
             the one of these CoreCivic facilities in California:
             1. Otay Mesa Detention Center in Otay Mesa,
             California, 2. San Diego Correctional Facility in
             Otay Mesa, California, 3. California City
             Correctional Facility in California City,
             California.  Any time between Jan. 1, 2006 and the
             present, and you were forced or coerced to clean
             areas of the facility outside of your personal
             living area under threat of punishment. You are
             included even if you got paid for this work.

         (3) California Labor Law Class: You were detained at any
             CoreCivic facility in California listed above any
             time between May 31, 2013 and the present, AND you
             participated in the Voluntary Work Program.

      8. The FAQ #16 will be modified to include a hyperlink to
         the Exclusion Request Form.

      9. The Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Case Management
         Schedule on the Documents page must be removed and may
         be replaced with the Scheduling Order.  If the Plaintiff
         chooses to include it, it must also update this link
         without undue delay when there are schedule
         modifications in the future.
    
     10. The Long Form Notice on the Documents Page will include
         the Exclusion Request Form.

     11. The Exclusion Request Form must have its own link as a
         separate document on the Documents page.

   B. As to the interactive voice response: The text in the
      introductory paragraph of the script will state the
      following: Welcome to the Owino v. CoreCivic Voice
      Information System.  This system provides information about
      the proposed class action lawsuit.  This Action alleges
      that CoreCivic (formerly called Corrections Corporation of
      America) violated Federal and state law by (1) forcing
      detainees to clean areas of the facility outside of their
      personal living area under threat of punishment, and (2)
      failing to pay minimum wage, provide wage statements, and
      pay earned compensation upon termination, and imposing
      unlawful terms and conditions of employment to detainees
      who were detained in a California facility and who
      participated in the Voluntary Work Program.  CoreCivic
      denies the allegations in the lawsuit and denies that it
      did anything wrong.

   C. As to the press release:

      1. The "What is this Lawsuit About" paragraph will be
         edited to the following: The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
         are called Class Representatives. They are asking for
         money damages and restitution allowed under California
         and Federal law for themselves and the Class Members, as
         well as attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection
         with the lawsuit.  CoreCivic denies that it did anything
         wrong, and contends that it did not coerce or force
         detainees to clean areas of the facility outside of
         their personal living area under threat of punishment
         and did not violate Federal or California law.
         CoreCivic also denies that it violated California law
         with respect to participants in the Voluntary Work
         Program in its California facilities and seeks an offset
         of any owed wages or damages by the amount it cost to
         house detainees and operate the Voluntary Work Program.

      2. The "What happens if I'm a class member?" section will
         read as follows: If you would like to be a Class Member
         in this class action lawsuit, you do not need to do
         anything. Doing nothing means you will automatically be
         part of the Class.  The Class Representatives and Class
         Counsel will represent your interests in the lawsuit.
         If any decisions are made or money or benefits awarded,
         you will be notified on what you need to do next.  As a
         Class Member in this class action, you will have to
         follow and comply with any court decision in the case,
         whether favorable or unfavorable. You will be bound by
         any settlement or judgment entered in this lawsuit.  Any
         damages award may be reduced to pay the costs and fees
         of Class Counsel, and if you are a member of the
         California Labor Law class, any offset if CoreCivic
         prevails on its counterclaim.  You will also lose any
         right to pursue similar claims for this time period on
         your own behalf, and you will not be able to file
         another lawsuit raising similar claims.

   D. As to the television and radio ads:

      1. The Plaintiffs do need to provide a version of the
         English ad before it airs.  However, as long as it
         provides the same content (including video, images, and
         audio) as the Spanish ad which was included, the Court
         will approve the ad.  The English ad should be identical
         to the Spanish ad, except for the translations of the
         text on the screen and spoken words.  The Plaintiffs do
         not need to submit the English ad to the Court for
         approval, but need to disclose it to the Defendant.

      2. The Plaintiffs may use the video/image of prison bars
         because there is no dispute that the class members were
         detained in prison.  The other videos cannot be used as
         they are prejudicial and may not portray an accurate
         reflection of the Plaintiffs' circumstances.

      3. References to "Court Mandated Notice" in the ads must be
         removed.

   E. As to the online and social media ads:

      1. The image of the angry man with a hat may not be used.

      2. The text will instead read "Were you forced to work
         against your will, or did you participate in a Voluntary
         Work Program in California?"

      3. References to "Court Mandated Notice" in the Facebook
         ads must be removed.

   F. As to the Spanish translations:

      1. All translations must be made consistent with the
         described rulings.

      2. The translations throughout the notice materials related
         to the same issue should be modified to be a translation
         of "detained" rather than "stopped."

The Plaintiffs will have until Jan. 19, 2020, to begin execution of
the class notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8t3njpd from Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Johnson, Chen Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the appeal
in the consolidated Johnson and Chen class action suit, Johnson v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018);
Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11,
2018)., is still pending.

The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11, 2018).

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.

They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April
16, 2019.

On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to
file a further amended complaint.

A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court
dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in September 2020.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Dustin S.
Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937, is
pending.

On June 23, 2020, a putative class action was filed against the
Company, the "Board of Directors," the "Costco Benefits Committee"
and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937.

The class is alleged to be beneficiaries of the Costco 401(k) plan
from June 23, 2014, and the claims are that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in the operation and oversight of the plan.


The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

On September 11, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on September 21 the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which the defendants have also moved to dismiss.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D.
Ohio).

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of
opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities,
hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others.


In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D.
Ohio).

Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions
filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon,
Virginia and South Carolina and a third-party payor in Ohio, class
actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical
conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions
filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased
insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 41 states and
American Samoa.

In 2019, similar actions were commenced against the Company in
state court in Utah.

Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma,
and Arizona have been dismissed.

The Company is defending all of these matters.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Martinez v.
Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D. Cal.; filed
June 11, 2019).

In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices.

Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D.
Cal.).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.



COTTER CORP: Claim for Contribution v. Mallinkrodt in Banks Severed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMIA BANKS, et al., Plaintiffs v. COTTER CORPORATION
(N.S.L.), et al., Defendants. COTTER CORPORATION (N.S.L.),
Third-Party Plaintiff v. MALLINCKRODT LLC, et al., Third-Party
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-01227-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A.
Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever and Remand All
Non-Third-Party Claims.

On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff Banks filed an amended class action
petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  Banks
asserted numerous state law claims, generally alleging that as a
result of the Defendants' collective conduct over several decades,
radioactive wastes were released into the environment in and around
Coldwater Creek, resulting in contamination of her home and
property, as well as the property of other classes members.

The Defendants promptly removed the case to the Court claiming that
the action arose out of the Price-Anderson Act ("PAA"), thereby
establishing federal jurisdiction.  Following remand, the case
proceeded in state court and the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Class Action Petition.

On June 30, 2020, Cotter filed a Third-Party Petition seeking
contribution from the Third-Party Defendants, including
Mallinckrodt.  Cotter argues that any potential damages assessed
against it were caused, in whole or in part, by the conduct, fault,
acts, carelessness, omissions, and negligence of Mallinckrodt,
thereby barring any such recovery against Cotter.

Mallinckrodt then filed a Notice of Removal claiming the Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to the PAA and because Mallinckrodt acted
under color of or at the direction of a federal officer per 28
U.S.C. Section 1442.  On Oct. 12, 2020, it filed for bankruptcy,
triggering an automatic stay in the case.  The Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion the next day.

The automatic stay further complicates the already convoluted
posture.  In accordance with the automatic stay, the Plaintiffs'
motion does not seek any relief as to Mallinckrodt but instead
requests that the Court severs and declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims
against the Defendants.

For purposes of the motion, the Plaintiffs effectively presume that
Mallinckrodt has properly invoked the Court's jurisdiction via its
Notice of Removal without waiving their right to argue otherwise.
Accordingly, a detailed inquiry into the presence of federal
jurisdiction over Mallinckrodt is unnecessary at this moment.  The
key question on the motion is whether, assuming such jurisdiction
exists, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims.

Judge Ross finds that the Plaintiffs in the case are Missouri
citizens and property owners who seek damages and injunctive relief
under Missouri law based on events which took place entirely in
Missouri. After an earlier remand, Cotter's Third-Party Petition
seeking contribution against Mallinckrodt, who has a potential
federal defense under the PAA and 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, provides
the only potential avenue for federal jurisdiction in the case.

Mallinckrodt's federal defense is only relevant, however, in the
event that the Plaintiffs succeed in their claims against Cotter.
While the claim against Mallinckrodt stems from a common nucleus of
operative fact as the Plaintiffs' state law claims, the state law
claims substantially predominate, and the Gibbs factors favor
severance and remand.  Mallinekrodt is not an indispensable party
to the litigation, and its presence as Third-Party Defendant does
not change the Court's prior determination that there is no federal
jurisdiction under the PAA.

Accordingly, Judge Ross granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Sever and
Remand All Non-Third-Party Claims.  He severed Cotter's claim for
contribution against Mallinekrodt in its Third-Party Petition, and
remanded all the other claims in the case back to the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County for further proceedings.  As requested by
Cotter, the Court will wait 30 days before ordering the Clerk of
Court to transmit the order to state court so that any party may
exercise its right to appeal.

The Judge denied as moot the Landfill Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Cotter's Third-Party Petition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsq5gw2 from Leagle.com.


CREW INTERNATIONAL: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Crew International LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Crew
International LLC, doing business as: Cali White, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06102-ENV-RML (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

Crew International is located in Satellite Beach, Florida. This
organization primarily operates in the Offices and Clinics of
Dentists business/industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CROWN RESORTS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid License Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burnett, writing for High Stakes Database, reports that the
Victoria state government has brought forward a review of the Crown
Resorts properties, with the appointment of a special commissioner
in the pipeline to investigate whether the Crown Melbourne is fit
to hold a licence.

A New South Wales inquiry recently heard that the influence of
billionaire majority shareholder James Packer, son of the legendary
businessman and gambler Kerry Packer, should disqualify them from
holding a licence for a new $2.2billion Sydney casino.

The Victoria review is needed, says Victorian Gaming Minister
Melissa Horne," . . . given the evidence we've seen come out of the
NSW inquiry."

She explained further: "Given the damning evidence coming out of
the inquiry -- including bags of cash under desks, tampering with
poker machine controls and money laundering -- Crown shouldn't be
allowed to retain its Victorian licence while this investigation
takes place."

In the meantime, with the annual Aussie Millions series planned for
January being postponed indefinitely, the poker room has been
gutted. . . .

However, a licence review and no poker tables are not the only
problems facing the Crown group.

A whistleblower who was one of 19 Crown staff arrested for breaking
Chinese gambling laws in 2016 is launching a class action lawsuit
against the company for breaching their duty of care to her as an
employee.

Jenny Jiang is incensed at being called a "gold-digger" by the
casino in newspaper ads. She told abc.au news: "We brought so much
revenue, so much business and profit for Crown. And we were just
dumped like a used napkin. That's why I feel so angry -- I feel so
upset with what happened and what they're saying about me."

Meanwhile, Crown are also facing a separate shareholder class
action, which seeks compensation for investors who lost money after
the group's share price tumbled in the wake of the China scandal.
[GN]


DAIMLER AG: $4.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Vancouver Alumni Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, VANCOUVER ALUMNI ASSET HOLDINGS INC., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v.
DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER,
Defendants, and MARIA MUNRO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. DAIMLER AG, DIETER
ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER, Defendants, Master File No.
16-cv-02942-DSF-KS, Case No. 16-cv-03412-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Dale A. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted the Lead Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and payment of expenses.

The Lead Counsel is awarded, on behalf of all the Plaintiffs'
Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,712,328.41, plus
accrued interest, and payment of litigation expenses in the amount
of $150,686.35, plus accrued interest.  The award of attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses may be paid to the Lead Counsel from
the Settlement Fund immediately on entry of the Order, subject to
the terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation.

The Settlement has created a common fund of $19 million in cash and
Settlement Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim Forms, will
benefit from the Settlement.

The Judge denied the Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement in
the amount of $4,000 as "lost wages" for the time its Executive
Director Christine Gierer spent on "litigation related activities."
He finds that the time and effort of a salaried employee of an
institutional plaintiff do not qualify as "reasonable costs and
expenses (including lost wages)" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.A.
Section 78u-4(a)(4).  The Lead Plaintiff also fails to submit any
time records or proof of expenses.

Any appeal or challenge affecting the Court's approval of any
attorneys' fee or expense application will in no way disturb or
affect the finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the
Settlement.

All capitalized terms used in the Order have the meanings set forth
and defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
April 20, 2020, as amended by the Parties' Agreement Regarding
Amendments to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
Sept. 14, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb9csyha from Leagle.com.


DERA RESTAURANT: Baudilio FLSA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANUEL BAUDILIO IXQUEPTAP, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DERA RESTAURANT, INC.
(D/B/A DERA), MOHAMMAD S ULLAH, and OSCAR RIVERA, Case No.
1:20-cv-10254, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on December 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06275-PKC-VMS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including
unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked, failure
to provide any breaks or meal periods of any kind, failure to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.

Dera Restaurant, Inc., doing business as Dera, is an owner and
operator of a Pakistani restaurant, located at 7209 Broadway,
Jackson Heights, New York. [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

DIAMOND NAIL: Lu Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANGMING LU and MARIA
OLGA LLIGUICOTA, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. DIAMOND NAIL SALON, LLC d/b/a Diamond Nail &
Spa, GREENWICH NAILS & SPA, LLC d/b/a Diamond Nail & Spa, GREENWICH
DIAMOND NAILS & SPA INC. d/b/a Diamond Nail & Spa, GUI BIAO QI
a/k/a Guibiao Qi a/k/a Leo Qi, ELAINE BAO a/k/a Elaine Ying Bao
a/k/a Elaine Y Bao a/k/a Ying Bao a/k/a Helen Bao a/k/a Ellen Bao,
and JOSE F. ROJAS, Case No. 3:19-cv-02017-VAB (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of the entry of
      this Order, to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
      first and last name, last known address with apartment
      number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
      last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
      FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
      dates of employment and position of:

      "all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
      employees employed at any time from December 29, 2016
      (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the
      date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and
      Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide
      the name list, whichever is later";

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
      any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
      website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
      members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
      of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
      affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is
      complete and from existing employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
      notice on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
      may also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the Chinese, English, and Spanish-speaking
      American immigrant worker community;

   7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
      workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
      Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
      Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
      publication in newspaper should the Defendants fail to
      furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the
      Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding
      address to be published in English, and Chinese, English,
      and Spanish; and

   9. directing equitable tolling on the statute of limitation
      on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
      the Opt-in Period.

The Defendants operate Spa Salon.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion to certify class dated
Dec. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Jud2Xr at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Williams Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctors Hospital of
Manteca. The case is styled as Milton Williams, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca, a California corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010898 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec.
28, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Doctors Hospital of Manteca -- https://www.doctorsmanteca.com/ --
provides clinical care to patients in the Central Valley of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021


DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in
the securities class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc.,
et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, is still pending.

In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was
filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging
violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.

On April 7, 2020, the court granted EXKAE Ltd.'s motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

On May 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection
with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering and during a
purported class period from June 28, 2020 through September 5,
2019.

On July 8, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The motion is fully briefed, and on November 18, 2020,
the federal court held a hearing on the motion.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.

DOMO INC: Bid to Toss Volonte Securities Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2020, that hearing on the motion to
dismiss filed in the securities class action suit entitled, Volonte
v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, has not yet been
scheduled.

In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and seeking unspecified damages.

In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte
action in favor of the Patton action. On July 22, 2020, the court
denied the defendants' motion to stay.

On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint.

The motion will not be fully briefed until December 16, 2020 and a
hearing has not yet been scheduled.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.

DRS PROCESSING: Holmes TCPA Suit Wins Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMER HOLMES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DRS PROCESSING,
LLC, d/b/a MILLER, STARK, KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, Case No.
3:18-cv-01193-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian Davis
entered an order:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge James Kinddt's Report and
      Recommendation as the opinion of this Court;

   2. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;
      and

   3. certifying the following class:

      "all persons within the United States who (a) received a
      non-emergency telephone call; (b) on his or her cellular
      telephone; (c) made by or on behalf of the Defendant; (d)
      for whom the Defendant had no record of prior express
      consent; (e) and such phone call was made with the use of
      an automatic telephone dialing system as defined under the
      Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); (f) at any time
      in the period that begins four years before the filing of
      the original complaint in this action to the date that
      class notice is disseminated;"

      Excluded from this definition are the Defendant, any
      entities in which the Defendant has a controlling
      interest, the Defendant's agents and employees, any Judge
      and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned,
      and any member of the Judges' staffs and immediate
      families;

   4. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative and
      the firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel; and

   5. requiring the Plaintiff to propose a plan for providing
      notice to the class member in accordance with Rule 23(c)
      (2).

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/34IUfivat no extra charge.[CC]

DUKE ENERGY: Class Action Lawsuit Over Coal Ash Cleanup Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Jedrzejek, writing for Mooresville Tribune, reports that a
year-long class-action lawsuit over Duke Energy's disposal of coal
ash in and around the Mooresville area was settled in February with
the largest coal ash cleanup project ever in American history.

Duke Energy, in response to pressure from the local community and
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, agreed to
remove almost 80 million tons of coal ash from six facilities, with
the Marshall Steam Station being listed. At that station, more than
17 million tons of coal ash will be removed from the storage basin
and placed in a lined landfill on the facility's property by 2034.

"This has been an eight-year legal fight that will result in the
largest coal ash cleanup in U.S. history by volume," the Catawba
Riverkeeper Foundation said in a Facebook post. "More importantly,
it will further protect and repair our beloved Catawba River
system. Thanks to our great partners like the Southern
Environmental Law Center, and our over 5,000 members."

In a statement, Duke Energy said the cost of this project will
total between $8 and 9 billion.

Studies were done to see if there was any link between the
abnormally high rate of thyroid cancer in the Mooresville area and
the coal ash, but to this point they have shown no correlation.
[GN]

DYNCORP INT'L: Del Fierro Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON DEL FIERRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07091-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all current and former California non-exempt employees of
      the Defendant DynCorp International, LLC who were paid any
      shift premium wages (including certification premiums) at
      any time from August 14, 2018, through the date that the
      class is certified;"

   2. appointing himself to be an adequate representative and
      certifying him as the class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel and their respective firms, namely
      Larry W. Lee of Diversity Law Group, P.C., Edward W. Choi
      of Law Offices of Choi and Associates, Dennis S. Hyun of
      Hyun Legal, and William L. Marder of Polaris Law Group as
      adequate class counsel and certifying them as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant issues defective wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a).
Specifically, the Defendant issues similarly-formatted wage
statements to class members which omit the applicable hours and
hourly rates for shift premium wages, which are items of hourly
wages. Section 226(a) was enacted to protect workers from being
cheated from their wages and being able to discern what they are
being paid. The Plaintiff continues that the Defendant's wage
statements undisputedly violate Section 226(a)(9) by failing to
list all hours and hourly rates for shift premium wages paid.

On August 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant. After the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Defendant filed its FRCP 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Summary Judgment. Notably in said motion, the
Defendant admitted that the wage statements at issue did in fact
leave out the applicable rates and hours as the Plaintiff contends.
Nonetheless, the Defendant argued that the applicable rates and
hours could be determined by "simple math." On February 12, 2020,
the Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

DynCorp is an American private military contractor. Started as an
aviation company, the company also provides flight operations
support, training and mentoring.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htdVfv
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          dhyun@hyunlegal.com
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit filed before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
still pending.

On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019. On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020,
the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same
class against the same defendants as well as the Company’s former
General Counsel. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the
Company's 10-K reports and other public statements and disclosures
contained materially false or misleading statements about, among
other things, the effectiveness of its internal controls and
related party loans, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting in injury to the purported
class members as a result of the decline in the value of the
Company's common stock following the disclosure of increased legal
expenses associated with certain government investigations
involving the Company. The Company intends to defend vigorously
against the claims asserted. On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 15, 2020, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss, and on June 15, 2020, the defendants filed their reply
brief. Briefing on defendants' motion is now complete, and the
motion is under consideration by the court.

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

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States.  It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.

EASLEY TRANSPORTATION: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Williams, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. EASLEY
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02952-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 30, 2020) is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated hourly-paid trucking employees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked and
performed work for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week
within weekly pay periods. The Defendant has had a time keeping
system for the purpose of recording the compensable hours worked by
Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly-paid trucking employees.
The Defendant had had a common plan, policy and practice of
automatically "editing-out/deducting" a 30 minute meal period
during each work shift of the Plaintiff and hourly-paid trucking
employees, irrespective of whether they performed job duties during
such "edited-out/deducted" 30 minute meal periods.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff for
all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one
and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Williams has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
trucking employee.

The Defendant is a transportation and logistics company with
operations in Memphis, Tennessee and Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EATALY: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eataly, a New York-based Italian market chain, has settled a
class-action lawsuit with employees, agreeing to pay $1,887,500 to
resolve allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations at its
Flatiron and Financial District locations. The lawsuit was
originally filed on November 29, 2017, against defendants Eataly
America, Inc., Eataly USA LLC, Eataly NY LLC, Eataly NY FIDI LLC,
Eataly USA CEO Nicola Farinetti, and Eataly USA CFO Adam Saper. Any
employees who worked at the two stores between November 29, 2011
and November 4, 2020 are eligible to receive payment.

In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged, "Eataly violated New York
labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay wages
for all hours worked due to a policy of time shaving, failing to
provide proper wage and hour notice and "failing to provide proper
wage statements." The plaintiffs also claimed supervisors
"routinely instructed them to perform unpaid off-the-clock work."

In 2018 the Italian market suit was certified as a class-action,
and District Judge Katherine B. Forrest wrote the "plaintiffs have
sufficiently demonstrated that specific supervisors and/or managers
at Eataly violated the relevant statutes by engaging in 'time
shaving' and other illegal practices."

Former employees had disclosed Eataly switched to an "admin fee"
system for expensive buyouts of restaurant event spaces which led
to its servers receiving less than they had been for large events
and parties.

"They're making money on top of money, then they're saving on
labor, and it's not just you come in and it's an easy party," one
plaintiff said. Another added, "They would especially make the back
waiters and those folks do a lot more of that - which, again, is
not part of their jobs - to empty out an entire restaurant of
furniture, bring it up on the roof in rain and snow, and then have
to bring it back in."

Earlier in 2020, Eataly also rolled out a Paycheck Protection
Program loan to rehire staff at lower wages. An email sent by North
America executive vice president Raffaele Piarulli indicated
employees could opt into the program or "permanently resign from
your position instead." Many felt they were left with no choice but
to accept a lower rate, especially during the pandemic.

Employees of the Italian market chain also reported incidents in
which they were written up for circumstances beyond their control.
One plaintiff reported suffering from chronic back pain. When this
flared up during a New Year's Eve shift and he was unable to
continue working, he was written up. He provided a doctor's note,
as instructed, but was given a final warning that he would be
terminated if the condition continued to interfere with his
position.

A spokesperson for the company, Lisa Serbaniewicz, said the
defendants "deny all material allegations" and "deny any wrongdoing
of any kind whatsoever, and without admitting any liability." She
adds, "While we maintain that all employees were paid for all hours
worked, we decided to prioritize a resolution and have consequently
settled this matter."

Of the back pain incident, she added, "Per the disciplinary action
form, the individual failed to get shift coverage on a day
management alerted the staff that call-outs wouldn't be accepted."

With this management style in place, it's unsettling to consider
how a positive coronavirus test might be handled. [GN]




ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Class Suit in New Jersey Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the purported
class action suit initiated by Richard Raschke is still stayed.

On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr.
Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and
misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public
statements by or on behalf of the Company.

The Class Action asserts claims against all defendants for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the Taylors and
Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b) against Mr. Giguiere.

The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of
plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3)
an award of reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants have moved to stay this action.  

By consent of the parties, the Court has agreed to suspend this
matter pending resolution of the consolidated derivative action in
Hawaii.

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

Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused
company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and
alternative medicine industry. Its services include business
location, localized communications between consumers and business
operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and
payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii.

ELITESINGLES LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EliteSingles LLC. The
case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. EliteSingles LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10981 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

EliteSingles -- http://elitesingles.com/-- is one of the global
dating sites, creating on average 2000 new couples each month in
more than 20 countries worldwide.[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


EMC INSURANCE: Restaurant Seeks Insurance Refund Due to COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie K. Jones, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that in
a class action lawsuit, a Michigan restaurant and bar has
challenged its insurer over commercial policy premium payments that
covered the time it was forced to shut down during the COVID-19
pandemic. The lawsuit requests premium refunds and other relief.

In Flo's Pizzeria & Sports Bar v. EMC Insurance, Belmont,
Michigan-based Flo's Pizzeria seeks restitution not only for itself
but for all members of a class that bought commercial insurance
policies from EMC, including commercial liability, commercial auto
and commercial umbrella, and have not been given any premium relief
for the periods they were ordered to close their doors by public
authorities in order to slow the spread of the pandemic.

Flo's Pizzeria cited the example of auto insurers that have offered
refunds and discounts to drivers nationwide after the widespread
stay at home orders caused an extreme drop in the miles driven by
auto policyholders across the nation.

"Like automobile policyholders, as a result of the widespread
stay-at-home orders, Plaintiff has experienced a 'radical
reduction' in its exposure to potential claims under the Policy, as
evidenced by its reduced hours of operation, limited operation, and
receipts during the effective period for the stay-at-home orders,"
the lawsuit states.

Flo's Pizzeria purchased commercial liability, commercial auto and
commercial umbrella policies from EMC that are effective from Jan.
23, 2020, to Jan. 23, 2021.

Due to Michigan's stay at home order, Flo's closed its dining room
to the public from March 16 through June 8, resulting in a
significant revenue loss, as well as greatly reduced exposure to
loss, the suit maintains. Because Flo's Pizzeria "has experienced a
significantly lower exposure rate due to COVID-19," it "overpaid
for its premiums when the policies were written," the lawsuit
states.

Businesses all over the country have experienced similar losses,
the lawsuit explains. "Class members are so numerous that their
individual joinder is impracticable. The precise number of Class
members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time,
but EMC is in the top 60 property/casualty organizations in the
United States," it states.

The suit alleges that EMC has disregarded provisions in its
policies that state "the premium is an estimate, that it is
possible to overpay." As such, "EMC is required to return
overpayments by the class," the suit says.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and breach of good faith by EMC and requests declaratory
and injunctive relief, as well as a jury trial.

The lawsuit was filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, case number 1:20-cv-00626.

In an emailed reply to Insurance Journal, EMC Insurance Director of
Community Involvement Sarah Buckley said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.[GN]


ENCOMPASS SUPPLY: Bishop Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Encompass Supply Chain
Solutions, Inc. and Encompass Supply Holdings, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10639 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

Encompass Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. distributes finished goods
and replacement parts. The Company offers parts for consumer
electronics, appliance, HVAC, computer, and imaging products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ENCORE CAPITAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in Williams Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LLOYD WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., AND MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05252-JMG (E.D. Pa.), Judge John M.
Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.

In March 2016, Plaintiff Williams received a My BJ's Perks
Mastercard after purportedly accepting a "pre-screen" offer from
Comenity Capital Bank.  The Plaintiff began making purchases with
the card until his employer reduced him to part-time status and he
was no longer able to make the minimum payments on his outstanding
balance.  Comenity thereafter charged off the Plaintiff's account
and sold it to Defendant Midland Funding on March 30, 2018.

Upon acquisition of the Account, Defendant Midland Funding engaged
Defendant Midland Credit Management to service the account.
Midland Credit Management later brought suit against the Plaintiff
in Philadelphia Municipal Court to recover the charged-off debt,
and on Nov. 20, 2019, withdrew the suit without prejudice.

In response to the Defendants' lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a class
action lawsuit in federal court alleging that the Defendants
violated federal and state law by attempting to collect credit card
debt encompassing interest rates above which they were authorized
to charge.  The Plaintiff is requesting declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Pennsylvania's
Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and Pennsylvania's Loan
Interest Protection Law on Nov. 7, 2019.

Following a limited discovery period which concluded on March 16,
2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on March
30, 2020.  They argue that they assumed the right to enforce the
arbitration provision contained within the credit card agreement
between the Plaintiff and Comenity when they purchased the rights
to the Plaintiff's Account from Comenity.  The Plaintiff counters
that the specific language of the arbitration agreement precludes
the Defendants from enforcing it, thus no agreement to arbitrate
exists between the Parties.

On April 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his Response.  He argues
that when Midland Funding purchased "all rights, title and
interest" of Comenity, those rights were necessarily limited to
exclude the right to compel arbitration.

The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on Dec. 16, 2020.

Judge Gallagher finds the Plaintiff's arguments both compelling and
supported by the applicable state law.  The arbitration provision's
definition of "we," which does not include assignees, qualifies the
Agreement's general definition of "we," which includes "any
successor or assign."  As a result, the assignees were not included
within the definition of parties who could enforce the arbitration
provision.

The Defendants also direct the Court to an array of cases
throughout the Third Circuit to reinforce their assertion that
"arbitration rights are enforceable by assignees."  But that
principle is not at issue in the case nor does the Court advance an
assertion to the contrary, Judge Gallagher opines.  The issue in
the case is whether generally assignable rights, including the
right to enforce an arbitration agreement, are restricted by
specific contract language which limits the parties who can enforce
those rights to the exclusion of assignees.  As applied to the
facts of the case, the Judge finds that they are.

Judge Gallagher concludes that one cannot sell what he does not
own.  Nor can an assignee acquire greater rights than those held by
the assignor.  Under the terms of the arbitration provision in the
case, assignees were not included amongst those who could enforce
its terms.  The Judge, therefore, finds that the Defendants have
failed to carry their burden of showing that there is no genuine
dispute as to whether a binding arbitration agreement exists
between the Parties.  Accordingly, Judge Gallagher denied the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.  An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycvj7z9o from Leagle.com.


ESSA BANCORP: Bank Unit Still Faces Suit over RESPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that ESSA Bank & Trust
continues to defend itself against a class action over violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

ESSA Bank & Trust was named as a defendant in an action commenced
on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue
this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of
people similarly situated.

The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the
appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the
plaintiff's case against the Bank, and remanded the case back to
the district court in order to continue the litigation.

The litigation is now proceeding before the district court.

On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The case is currently stayed while the parties explore the
possibility of a negotiated resolution to the case.  

In an order dated November 24, 2020, the Court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan to assist in mediation
efforts.  

ESSA said, "If these discussions are not successful, the Bank will
continue to defend against such allegations. To the extent that
this matter could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of
such exposures cannot currently be estimated."

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

ESSA BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Sherman Act Claim Pending
------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the Sherman Act claim, is pending.

On May 29, 2020, ESSA Bank & Trust was named as a defendant in an
action commenced by three plaintiffs who will also seek to pursue
this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of
people similarly situated.  

The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title
company than the one involved in the previously discussed
litigation in the process of making loans.  

The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  

The plaintiffs filed an Amended complaint on September 30, 2020
that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims. The
Bank moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14, 2020,
and that motion is now fully briefed and awaiting a decision from
the court.    

ESSA said, "The Bank intends to defend against such allegations. To
the extent that this matter could result in exposure to the Bank,
the amount of such exposure cannot currently be estimated."

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

EVOQUA WATER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation."  

In November 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws
by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the
period leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement
of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year
fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a
transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment
operating model.  

In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation.

In March 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of the
Company's board of directors, senior management, a former
executive, AEA Investors LP (AEA), and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary public
offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
financial results of operations.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and
an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel.


In March 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
a portion of the claims, dismissing all claims predicated on
supposedly intentional misstatements or omissions, which were
brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims that
remain are those brought under the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company has filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint, and discovery is now underway. The Company believes
that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against the allegations.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE PEREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
INC., and EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-07752-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to enter an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "persons who at any point in the last three years from the
      date of this motion worked for Express Scripts, Inc. And
      Express Scripts Holding Company as Program
      Communications Managers, Campaign Managers,
      Communications Managers, Product Managers, Senior Product
      Managers, Communications Channel Managers, Project
      Managers and Senior Project Managers";

   2. directing Express Scripts to produce a computer-readable
      list identifying by name, last known mail address, last
      known email address, and telephone number all persons
      described above within 10 days of entry of the Order;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the Notice to the
      Declaration of Catherine E. Anderson, Esq., to putative
      class members via U.S. Mail and/or email and the Consent
      to Join form; and

   4. authorizing Express Scripts to post the Notice in a
      conspicuous common area in its facilities.

Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefit management organization. In
2017 it was the 22nd-largest company in the United States by total
revenue as well as the largest pharmacy benefit management
organization in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WXpMbZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Class,
are:

          Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 259-6990
          Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
          E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Russell S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
          RUSSELL S. WARREN JR. LAW FIRM
          473 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-1234
          Telephone: (201) 503-0773
          Facsimile: (201) 503-0776
          E-mail: mail@RWarrenlaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (646) 964-9610
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

EXXONMOBIL: N.C. State Student Files DACA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports
that an N.C. State student is suing ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) in
federal court, claiming the oil giant is unfairly denying
employment to DACA dreamers. The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 24 on
behalf of Aldo de Leon Resendiz, a chemical engineering student,
accuses Exxon of discrimination for refusing to hire those who have
acquired work authorization through the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. [GN]



FACEBOOK INC: IMB Seeks Certification of Facebook Advertisers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as
INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM, LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. FACEBOOK, INC, Case No.
4:18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
on April 28, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals or entities within the United States who,
      from August 28, 2014 to the present, targeted Facebook
      users in one or more "interest," "behavior," or "partner"
      categories selected using Facebook's self-serve targeting
      interface, and who paid Facebook for at least one ad for
      which they neither (a) expressly authorized Facebook to
      disregard their targeting criteria by opting into "Target
      Expansion" nor (b) elected to be charged only when a user
      made a purchase or downloaded an app;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing Steven F. Molo of MoloLamken LLP, Jordan L.
      Lurie of Pomerantz LLP, and Joshua Elazar Fruchter of Wohl
      & Fruchter LLP as co-lead class counsel for the proposed
      class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The Plaintiff seeks certification of California consumer
protection, deceit, and common-law fraud claims on behalf of the
nationwide class of Facebook advertisers. Those claims are
naturally suited to class-wide resolution.
IntegrityMessageBoards.com (IMB) and the absent members of the
class suffered the same injury: they all paid Facebook for ads
shown to users who did not satisfy the targeting criteria they had
chosen. A California choice-of-law provision in the contracts
between Facebook and its advertisers means that all class-members'
claims are subject to the same legal standards. And the common
questions that those claims present are readily amenable to
class-wide answers, asserts the complaint.

In 2007, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg heralded a new
age of advertising with a simple, revolutionary promise: "With
Facebook you will be able to select exactly the audience you want
to reach, and we will only show your ads to them." Leveraging its
access to 2.5 billion users' personal information, Facebook
purported to offer advertisers something that no other platform
could -- the ability to tailor audiences down to the most minute
details. Millions of advertisers bought into that promise, pumping
more than $200 billion -- a staggering sum that represents
"substantially all of Facebook's revenue -- into the company's
coffers since 2015. But it was all too good to be true. Even as
Facebook promoted the illusion of precision, yet Facebook's
management did nothing, the Plaintiff contends.

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

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 23,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hkEZxp
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          Facsimile: (310) 861-8591
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818
          Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Molo, Esq.
          Lauren F. Dayton, Esq.
          Leonid Grinberg, Esq.
          Megan Cunniff Church, Esq.
          Caleb Hayes-Deats, Esq.
          Eugene A. Sokoloff, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          430 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 607-8160
          Facsimile: (212) 607-8161
          E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com
                  ldayton@mololamken.com
                  lgrinberg@mololamken.com
                  mchurch@mololamken.com
                  chayes-deats@mololamken.com
                  esokoloff@mololamken.com

FACEBOOK INC: Wins Dismissal of Heeger's First Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits styled BRETT HEEGER et al. v. FACEBOOK, INC., and
BRENDAN LUNDY et al., v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case Nos. 18-cv-06399-JD,
18-cv-06793-JD (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order:

   -- granting Facebook's motion to dismiss Heeger's first
      amended class action complaint;

   -- denying in part and granting in part Facebook's motion to
      dismiss Lundy's first amended class action complaint; and

   -- granting the Plaintiffs in both cases leave to amend.

The cases are related putative class actions by Facebook users, who
challenge Facebook's collection of personal location data. In both
cases, the first amended class action complaints are the operative
pleadings.  While the allegations in the complaints overlap to a
considerable degree, Lundy presents some material variations that
warrant a different outcome for the motion, District Judge James
Donato notes. Facebook is the sole named Defendant in each action.

The Heeger FAC added three named plaintiffs -- Zachary Henderson,
Caleb Rappaport, and Elizabeth Pomiak -- to Plaintiff Heeger, who
filed the original complaint. As alleged in the FAC, Facebook
describes the "Location History" feature in its mobile app, and the
"Location Services" setting on users' cell phones, as settings
through which Facebook users can purportedly control location
tracking. But Facebook collects users' location data without those
users' consent, regardless of their settings. Facebook then
highlights the detail and specificity of that data to its
advertisers, and uses the data to precisely target its advertiser
customers' advertisements to Facebook users.

The FAC alleges California state law claims on behalf of a putative
class of "all Facebook users in the United States who turned off
'Location History' or 'Location Services' or both, during the
applicable limitations period," for: (1) violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Section 630 et
seq. ("CIPA"); (2) violation of California's constitutional right
of privacy; (3) intrusion upon seclusion; and (4) unjust
enrichment.

The Lundy FAC was brought by two Plaintiffs: Lundy and Myriah
Watkins. The FAC alleges that they never granted Facebook
permission to access their location data through their Location
Services or Facebook App settings, and that they specifically had
their "Location History" Facebook app setting turned to "off." The
Plaintiffs allege that contrary to the Plaintiffs' device settings
selections, and contrary to Facebook's Privacy Policy in effect
during the relevant time period, Facebook tracked the Plaintiffs'
locations using their IP addresses and enhanced location
determination techniques. Facebook is said to have bundled the
location information with the Plaintiffs' other personal
information, and then monetized these bundled packages for targeted
advertising purposes, thus enriching itself in the amount of
hundreds of millions of dollars from increased advertising
revenue.

Unlike Heeger, the Lundy Plaintiffs limit their claims to the time
period before April 19, 2018 (alleging the lawsuit is brought on
behalf of persons who were users of Facebook prior to April 19,
2018 who did not give Facebook permission to collect and use their
location information). The Plaintiffs acknowledge that Facebook
adopted on that date a "revised privacy policy" which disclosed
that Facebook will collect location data using IP addresses, even
without user permission.

The complaint in Lundy also differs from Heeger in the claims
alleged against Facebook. The Lundy plaintiffs make claims for: (1)
violation of article I, section 1 of the California constitution;
(2) intrusion upon seclusion; (3) intentional misrepresentation and
omission; (4) deceit by concealment or omission; (5) breach of
contract; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (7) negligent misrepresentation; and (8) unjust
enrichment.

Facebook has moved to dismiss both amended complaints under Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Facebook's Motion to Dismiss in Heeger

According to the Court's Order, it is the second round of pleadings
motions in Heeger. The Court granted Facebook's initial motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend. In that order, it concluded that
Plaintiff Heeger had established Article III of the Constitution
standing to sue on the privacy and other claims.

On substantive grounds, the CIPA claim was dismissed because the
complaint did not plausibly allege the use of an "electronic
tracking device" as required by California Penal Code Section
637.7(a). The Plaintiffs amended the complaint, but with scant
improvement, Judge Donato notes. The Heeger FAC now reads like a
book report that simply summarizes third-party news stories about
Facebook's ostensible capacity to "discern precise locations" from
user data, he says. Few facts are alleged without the caveat of "on
information or belief," or without hedging on whether Facebook
actually does what Heeger accuses, or simply has the ability to do
it.

These allegations did nothing to fill in the substantive gaps in
the original complaint, Judge Donato writes. They did little more
than parrot internet musings about things Facebook may or may not
be doing, and which the Plaintiffs may or may not have experienced
themselves. When these fillers are stripped away, all that the
Heeger FAC alleges is that Facebook collected the Plaintiffs' IP
addresses. Consequently, the Heeger FAC plausibly alleges only that
Facebook collected the Plaintiffs' IP addresses and even then, only
when they were using the Facebook app or were visiting Facebook's
website. Judge Donato holds that it creates an Article III standing
problem for the Plaintiffs.

There is no legally protected privacy interest in IP addresses
alone, which is the only interest the Plaintiffs concretely allege,
Judge Donato writes. Consequently, they cannot be injured from the
collection of IP addresses, and so lack Article III standing for
the privacy claims under California common law, the California
constitution, and CIPA that are premised on that ostensible injury.
The Judge adds that the Plaintiffs also lack Article III standing
for the unjust enrichment claim because they have failed to make
any allegation that "they retain a stake in the profits garnered
from" the collection of their IP addresses.

Hence, Judge Donato ruled that the Heeger FAC is dismissed in its
entirety for lack of Article III standing. The Plaintiffs may, if
they wish, attempt to cure these deficiencies by filing an amended
complaint, which will likely constitute their final opportunity to
amend.

Facebook's Motion to Dismiss in Lundy

Facebook's prior motion to dismiss the Lundy complaint was mooted
when the Plaintiffs elected to voluntarily amend. Among other
amendments, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed some Defendants
and filed the FAC against Facebook only. This is the Court's first
decision with respect to the pleading allegations in Lundy.

Facebook again says that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
adequately the 'injury in fact' necessary to demonstrate Article
III standing. For the intrusion upon seclusion, California
constitutional privacy, breach of contract, and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, the salient
question is whether the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged privacy
injuries, and specifically, whether they alleged more than the
collection of IP addresses. Judge Donato holds that they have. The
Lundy FAC expressly alleges for both the Plaintiffs that a Facebook
folder entitled, "Security and Login Information," was discovered
to contain multiple entries identifying each Plaintiff's location
by IP address, latitude and longitude at specific dates and times
from 2014 through the present. The FAC adds that these files
contained the IP addresses assigned by the Plaintiffs' respective
Internet Service Providers ("ISP") to their devices when they
logged into the Facebook App, along with the precise longitude and
latitude of the IP address.

Judge Donato opines that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged harm
to these privacy interests, and so have standing to pursue their
California constitutional privacy claim, intrusion upon seclusion
claim, as well as their claims for breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, citing In re
Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589, 597 (9th
Cir. 2020).

In the case, as in In re Facebook, the Plaintiffs have alleged that
the location data collected from them "carry financial value,"
Judge Donato says. All of these allegations are sufficient at the
pleading stage to demonstrate that these profits were unjustly
earned, and the Plaintiffs have consequently sufficiently alleged a
state law interest whose violation constitutes an injury sufficient
to establish standing to bring their claims for fraud as well as
for unjust enrichment.

However, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the location data collected by Facebook.
Judge Donato has doubts about the seriousness of the alleged
invasion as well, but does not need to decide that now. The two
privacy claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Judge Donato adds
that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a misrepresentation or
omission.

The reliance allegations are less sound, the Judge adds. The
Plaintiffs have also failed to explain how their continued use of
Facebook even after discovery of the issue does not defeat any
alleged reliance on their part. The fraud claims are consequently
dismissed with leave to amend.

The breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Judge
Donato also notes that the Plaintiffs failed to oppose dismissal of
the unjust enrichment claim; hence, it is dismissed for that reason
with leave to amend.

Accordingly, Facebook's motion to dismiss the Heeger FAC is
granted, and its motion to dismiss the Lundy FAC is denied in part
and granted in part. In both cases, the Plaintiffs are granted
leave to amend, and any amended complaints must be filed by Jan.
21, 2021.

No new claims or Defendants may be added without express leave of
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 24, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjak3ra from Leagle.com.


FAST ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Cahoo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class in the case, PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN
MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs,
v. FAST ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY,
SHEMIN BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, and SHARON
MOFFET-MASSEY, Defendants, Case No. 17-10657 (E.D. Mich.).

The five named Plaintiffs, all former claimants in Michigan's
unemployment compensation system, allege that their constitutional
right to due process of law was infringed when the defendants
designed, built, and implemented an automated system to detect and
punish individuals who submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance
claims.  They seek to certify an opt-out class, the definition of
which has evolved throughout the case, with the pace of evolution
accelerating during the briefing on the Motion.

In 2012, the State of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency
("UIA") began using its Michigan Integrated Data Automated System
("MiDAS") to investigate and adjudicate fraud cases against
claimants.  It remained operative until August 2015, when the UIA
discontinued use of that system for that purpose.

The named Plaintiffs each were adjudicated as having submitted
fraudulent claims and were assessed penalties and interest,
collected in some instances by seized income tax refunds and wage
garnishments.  They were denied due process, they say, because
MiDAS failed to provide adequate notice of the fraud accusations
and automatically adjudicated fraud claims through the rote
operation of built-in decision trees that rigidly were applied
either through automation or by UIA functionaries.

The Plaintiffs' remaining claim in the case is that the Defendants
deprived them of their property without due process when MiDAS
determined that they had committed fraud when applying for and
receiving unemployment compensation benefits.  They seek to recover
the consequential damages that flowed from those determinations;
they already have received equitable relief in the form of
re-adjudications of the fraud accusations as a result of the Zynda
settlement.  It appears that during the time it was operational,
MiDAS was involved in some way in adjudicating the fraud cases of
67,740 individuals, according to an excel spreadsheet that the
State of Michigan produced.

The Plaintiffs seek to sweep all of those people into a class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) now defined as: All
persons whose fraud determinations were made using the MiDAS system
in any way from Oct. 1, 2013 until Aug. 7, 2015.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following four
subclasses:

   a. All claimants who received a fraud determination and
      received fraud questionnaire Form 1713;

   b. All claimants who received a fraud determination and
      received fraud determination Form 1302;

   c. All claimants who received an automated default
      determination of fraud based on prorating earnings weekly
      over a quarterly earning period; and

   d. All claimants who received an automated default
      determination of fraud based on selecting multiple choice
      answers 1, 6, or 7 to the fact finding questionnaire.

Judge Lawson finds that the Plaintiffs have identified a number of
faults with MiDAS, several of which support a claim for denial of
due process.  However, the evidence does not sustain the idea that
all members of the main proposed class, or even the proposed
subclasses, experienced the same problems with their MiDAS
encounters or suffered the same consequences.  Put another way in
class-action parlance, except for the Defendants' accountability,
the Plaintiffs have not identified a decisive common issue "that is
central to the validity of each one of the claims" of each one of
the class members.  And they have not established that the named
Plaintiffs' experiences were typical of the other absent class
members whose fraud claims were adjudicated at various stages of
the MiDAS process.

Judge Lawson states that there is one group of potential Plaintiffs
whose claims may benefit from class treatment: those individuals
adjudicated guilty of fraud solely because they did not return
their questionnaires.  But the named Plaintiffs who fall in that
category are not suitable class representatives because their
individual circumstances--particularly their failure to list the
cause of action in their bankruptcy schedules--subject them to
unique and individual defenses that threaten to become the focus of
the litigation and consume a significant measure of their time and
energy.

Finally, although many class members' claims raise legitimate
grievances, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
class-action structure is superior to other methods of claim
resolution, Judge Lawson opines.

Judge Lawson concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a), and they have identified some
questions common to their proposed class.  But they have not
satisfied the other requirements of Rule 23(a) or (b)(3).
Accordingly, Judge Lawson denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the case as a class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycks3d75 from Leagle.com.


FAST ENTERPRISES: Michigan Court Refuses to Dismiss Cahoo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK, KHADIJA
COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON v. FAST ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG
GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN BLUNDELL, DORIS
MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, and SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY, Case No.
17-10657 (E.D. Mich.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan denied the motions by CSG and FAST to dismiss
for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

District Judge David M. Lawson opines that the Plaintiffs
sufficiently have demonstrated an injury-in-fact (fraud
determinations based on the rigid application of the State of
Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency's rigid logic trees
coupled with inadequate notice procedures) that is fairly traceable
to FAST's and CSG's conduct. Although the Defendants make colorable
arguments that the Plaintiffs Cahoo and Cole are not the real
parties in interest of, or are judicially estopped from bringing,
their claims, the factual record is not complete to establish
conclusively that their claims are pre-petition or no longer belong
to them.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the motions by Defendants CSG
and FAST to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction are
denied.

The five Named Plaintiffs have commenced the putative class action
to recover damages allegedly caused by the State of Michigan's
Unemployment Insurance Agency's ("UIA") implementation of an
automated system to detect and punish individuals, who submitted
fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. They say that they are
victims of the system's many failures: it lacked human oversight,
it detected fraud by certain claimants where none existed, it
provided little or no notice to the accused claimants, it failed in
many instances to allow administrative appeals, and it assessed
penalties and forfeitures against individuals, who were blameless.
Their amended complaint listed 12 counts against the companies and
individuals whom they believe contributed to the State's
implementation of the flawed fraud-adjudication system.

The case has been whittled down through motion practice and an
interlocutory appeal, and now only one procedural due process claim
remains. The Defendants have filed a second round of motions to
dismiss, raising for the first time that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Defendants FAST and CSG argue that the Plaintiffs cannot establish
Article III standing because (1) they failed to demonstrate an
injury-in-fact because their claims were not entirely adjudicated
by the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS); (2) their
alleged injuries are not fairly traceable to the corporate
defendants; and (3) Plaintiffs Cahoo, Mendyk, and Cole are
precluded from bringing their claims because they failed to
disclose their property interests in this cause of action during
their respective bankruptcy proceedings.

The Plaintiffs adequately have established standing, Judge Lawson
says. Although the Plaintiffs' fraud cases may not entirely have
been auto-adjudicated by MiDAS, the UIA determined that each of the
Plaintiffs committed fraud by applying the UIA's logic trees, which
mandated a finding of fraud whenever a Plaintiff failed to respond
to a MiDAS-issued questionnaire.

Moreover, Judge Lawson opines, each Plaintiff sufficiently
demonstrated that the UIA did not provide adequate notice of the
Plaintiffs' fraud determinations and subsequent efforts to collect
on their debts. Because FAST and CSG worked hand-in-hand with the
UIA in developing and managing the MiDAS system (which included the
deficient notice procedures), the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are
fairly traceable to them, Judge Lawson holds.

The record requires further factual development on the accrual
dates for the due process claims of Plaintiffs Cahoo, Cole and
Mendyk vis-a-vis their bankruptcy filings, and there is
insufficient information to rule out ratification by a potential
real party in interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17(a)(3). Hence, the motions are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycys8wgn from Leagle.com.


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated New York Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged
misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC
and other public statements during the period from September 19,
2017 to December 18, 2018.

FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability
of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this
stage of the litigation."

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

FedEx Corporation provides a portfolio of transportation,
e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The
Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the
world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., a leading North American provider of
small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc., a
leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload freight services. The
company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.

FEDEX CORP: Fails to Protect Workers During Pandemic, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that FedEx Corp has
been hit with a proposed class action claiming the company has
failed to take even basic steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19
among the thousands of workers at its facilities in California.

The lawsuit, which FedEx removed to Los Angeles federal court,
accuses the company of creating a "public nuisance" and violating
California labor laws by refusing to implement social distancing,
screening and quarantining policies or provide adequate protective
equipment. [GN]



FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that there are 13
remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect
customers against Ferrellgas, L.P.

Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a
competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple
jurisdictions.

The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class.

These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the
multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western
District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by
direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of
indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas reached a settlement with
the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of
$6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct
purchaser class.  

With respect to the indirect customers, the district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion
and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims.  

As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a
putative class of indirect customers. Ferrellgas believes it has
strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these remaining claims.  

Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Suit Over Rotary Gear Selectors in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that Fiat Chrysler Canada (FCA Canada) is
facing a class action lawsuit filed by the owner of a Ram 1500
which allegedly almost killed him when the truck rolled away from
rotary-dial gear selector defects.

The FCA Canada class action lawsuit includes residents of Canada
who owned or leased 2013-2016 Ram 1500 or 2014-2016 Dodge Durango
vehicles equipped with electronic transmissions and rotary dials to
select the gear positions.

Plaintiff Neil Erik Anthony Linton says he put his 2016 Ram 1500,
with a trailer attached, into PARK on level ground at the top of a
hill and exited the vehicle. The truck allegedly suddenly began to
roll down the embankment with his two young children still in the
truck.

The plaintiff says he tried to get back into the driver's seat of
the moving truck and managed to steer the truck off the road as it
came to a stop with the "trailer jack digging into the ground."

However, the plaintiff says he got stuck between the truck door and
a tree, and one of his children was forced to flag down a
stranger.

According to the Chrysler Canada lawsuit, the plaintiff suffered a
lacerated liver, multiple broken ribs, a fractured sternum,
internal bleeding, a severe brain injury and several additional
serious injuries.

The Ram 1500 was a total loss and an investigation conducted by
Transport Canada found multiple complaints filed by Ram 1500 owners
due to rollaway incidents. Truck owners said the transmissions were
in PARK and the P symbols were illuminated when drivers entered the
trucks after the vehicles had rolled away.

In August 2017, Transport Canada opened a defect investigation into
2013-2017 Ram 1500s and 2014-2016 Dodge Durangos for inadvertent
rollaways from parked positions. The vehicles are equipped with
rotary gear selectors, and to date the Canadian investigation
continues.

According to the FCA Canada lawsuit, Ram and Dodge owners would not
have purchased the vehicles if Chrysler wouldn't have made
allegedly false and misleading statements about the vehicles.

The Chrysler Canada rotary gear selector lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta: Linton, v. Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Guardian Law Group LLP, and James
H. Brown & Associates. [GN]



FIDELITY NATIONAL: Chicago Title Pays 65% on Alcohol Escrow Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., disclosed several lawsuits were
filed in the past 16 months against Chicago Title Company and
Chicago Title Insurance Company as its alter ego, and other
co-defendants.  Generally, Fidelity National related in its SEC
filings, plaintiffs claim they are investors who were solicited by
Gina Champion-Cain, ANI Development, LLC, American National
Investments, Inc., and 40-some affiliates, to provide funds
purportedly to be used for high-interest, short-term loans to
parties seeking to acquire California alcoholic beverage licenses.
Plaintiffs contend that under California state law, alcoholic
beverage license applicants are required to escrow an amount equal
to the license purchase price while their applications remain
pending with the State.  The investors say Chicago Title Company
participated with Ms. Champion-Cain and her entities in a fraud
scheme involving an escrow account maintained by Chicago Title
Company into which the plaintiffs' funds were deposited for one
purpose and then withdrawn for another purpose at Ms.
Champion-Cain's direction.  The investors accuse former Chicago
Title employees Adelle (“Della”) E. DuCharme and Betty Elixman
of lying, breaching their ethical duties, and receiving generous
gifts from Ms. Champion-Cain to help perpetuate the Ponzi scheme
for years.  

In addition to the lawsuits, Fidelity National disclosed, Chicago
Title received a demand from a group of alleged investors and
resolved their claims "under confidential terms during a pre-suit
mediation."  That investor group, led by Synapse Investment
Partners, claimed $22.8 million of collective losses and
participated in mediation proceedings before the Honorable Layn
Phillips (Ret.).  Although the settlement agreement says it's
confidential, Chicago Title presented an unredacted copy to the
judge overseeing ANI's receivership proceedings and a criminal case
against Ms. Champion-Cain with a request he approve it as a
settlement "made in good faith" pursuant to section 877.6(c) of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.  The settlement document
reveals Chicago Title agreed to pay $14.8 million, or 65
cents-on-the-dollar.  Synapse and the individual investors were
represented by lawyers at Caldarelli Hejmanowski Page & Leer LLP.
The Synapse settlement pact received the court's blessing on Aug.
29, 2020, and the court was recently asked to approve some smaller
individual settlements at slightly lower percentages.

FLUOR CORP: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit in Texas Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas remains pending.

Since May 2018, purported shareholders have filed various
complaints against Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and
former executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14,
2013 through February 14, 2020, and seek to recover damages arising
from alleged violations of federal securities laws.

These claims are based on statements concerning Fluor's internal
and disclosure controls, risk management, revenue recognition, and
Fluor's gas-fired power business, which plaintiffs assert were
materially misleading.

As of May 26, 2020, these complaints have been consolidated into
one matter.

Fluor said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the matter on July 1,
2020. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a loss will be
incurred."

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

Fluor Corporation through its subsidiaries, provides engineering,
procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization,
operation, maintenance and asset integrity, and project management
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy &
Chemicals; Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified
Services; and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.

FORTRESS BIOTECH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 26, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Fortress Biotech, Inc. ("Fortress" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FBIO) securities between December 11, 2019 and October 9,
2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Fortress investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/fortress-biotech-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

Fortress develops and commercializes pharmaceutical and
biotechnology products. In December 2019, the Company's
majority-controlled subsidiary, Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.
("Avenue"), submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") for its
intravenous ("IV") Tramadol product to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the management of moderate to moderately
severe pain in adults in a medically supervised health care
setting.

On October 12, 2020, Avenue disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the NDA for its IV
Tramadol product. Specifically, the FDA advised Avenue that "it
cannot approve the application in its present form" because "IV
tramadol, intended to treat patients in acute pain who require an
opioid, is not safe for the intended patient population."
Specifically, the CRL stated: "[I]f a patient requires an analgesic
between the first dose of IV tramadol and the onset of analgesia, a
rescue analgesic would be needed. The likely choice would be
another opioid, which would result in opioid 'stacking' and
increase the likelihood of opioid-related adverse effects."

On this news, Fortress's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or
23.98%, to close at $3.17 per share on October 12, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) IV Tramadol
was not safe for the intended patient population; (2) as a result,
it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA for IV
Tramadol; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortress securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 26,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


FORTRESS BIOTECH: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FBIO) between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 26, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fortress-biotech-inc&id=2497
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fortress-biotech-inc&id=2497

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: IV Tramadol was not safe for the intended patient population;
(2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
the NDA for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


FRONTLINE ASSET: Class Certification Bid Filed in Madorskaya Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLGA MADORSKAYA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FRONTLINE ASSET
STRATEGIES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00895-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her Motion for
Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

The Plaintiff commenced this action via the filing of a Complaint
which alleged that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. As alleged in the Complaint, on February 14, 2018,
the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff an initial Collection Letter
seeking to collect a credit card debt allegedly owed to JH
Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC. When the Defendant's collection
letter is considered from the viewpoint of the least sophisticated
consumer, it is clear that the amount of the debt was therefore not
clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the manner required by the
statute. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to a grant of
summary judgment on her claim under Section 1692g of the FDCPA,
asserts the complaint.

FrontLine Asset is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
Dec. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38GUPOO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

GARDA CL ATLANTIC: Orlwitch NYLL Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FONTUS ORLWITCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDA CL ATLANTIC, INC., Case No.
604941/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of New York for the
County of Nassau to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on December 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 9:20-cv-06283 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Class
minimum wage overtime premiums, failing to provide notice of
compensation terms at the start of employment, and failing to
provide accurate wage statements.

Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. is a transportation services company, with
its principal place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Loren L. Forrest, Jr., Esq.
         Duvol M. Thompson, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
         31 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 513-3200
         Facsimile: (212) 385-9010
         E-mail: loren.forrest@hklaw.com
                 duvol.thompson@hklaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Agrees to Pay $12MM to Settle Vehicle Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors has agreed to settle class action claims for
economic losses suffered by owners and lessees of vehicles that
were recalled in 2014 for problems related to the ignition
switches, power steering, key rotations and side airbag wiring.

The plaintiffs claim they overpaid for their vehicles, allegations
denied by GM which decided to settle the lawsuit because of the
continued expense of litigation.

The General Motors settlement fund will be $121.1 million, and
although the lawyers who sued are expected to receive $34.5
million, no estimates have been reached about what vehicle owners
may receive because much depends on how many owners and lessees
file claims.

In addition, payment amounts to eligible class action members will
vary depending on which recall applied to their vehicle, the cost
to implement the settlement and the number of GM customers who file
claims.

The settlement includes all individuals, businesses and
organizations, but daily rental fleet businesses, governmental
entities and certain consumers are not included in the settlement.
The settlement also does not include the release of claims for
wrongful deaths or injuries.

The $121 million settlement follows multiple other actions related
to GM's ignition switches, including $595 million to resolve death
and injury compensation claims, $575 million to settle other death
and injury claims and a shareholder lawsuit, and another $900
million to settle a government criminal probe.

Visit GMIgnitionSwitchEconomicSettlement.com or call 877-545-0241
to see if your vehicle is covered by the settlement. [GN]


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Carter Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Nutrition
Corporation. The case is styled as Shelly Carter, on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees v. Susan M. Canning, General
Nutrition Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, Cameron
Lawrence, Kenneth A. Martindale, James M. Sander, and Tricia
Tolivar, Case No. 34-2020-00289696-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 4, 2020).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

General Nutrition Corporation distributes health and wellness
products. The Company offers vitamins and minerals, herbal
supplements, beauty, and weight loss products. General Nutrition
provides its products to customers throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd #120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 318-6327


GENESIS MOTOR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genesis Motor America
LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Genesis Motor America LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10976 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Genesis -- https://www.genesis.com/ -- is an all-new global luxury
automotive brand that delivers 'human-centered' standards of
design, innovation and performance. It distributes, markets and
services Genesis vehicles in the United States.[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


GMS MINE: Court Affirms Denial of Post-Trial Bids in Bonds Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH A. BONDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GMS MINE REPAIR &
MAINTENANCE, INC., Appellant, Case No. 1273 WDA 2019 (Pa. Super.),
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment entered by
the trial court in favor of the Plaintiff and the class.

Appellant GMS appeals from the judgment entered on Aug. 9, 2019, in
favor of Appellees, Bonds, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington
County.

President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott, writing for the Panel,
notes that in the caption of its brief, GMS purports to appeal from
the order denying its post-trial motions. However, she says, an
appeal does not lie from the denial of post-trial motions, citing
Jackson v. Kassab, 812 A.2d 1233, 1233 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal
denied, 825 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2003). The Court has amended the caption
accordingly.

On Aug. 23, 2013, a class action complaint identifying Bonds as an
individual Plaintiff was filed in Federal Court in the Western
District of Pennsylvania. Twenty-five months later (9/23/2015),
after substantial pre-trial litigation, Senior District Judge
Terrence F. McVerry partially granted GMS' motion for summary
judgment. Judge McVerry granted summary judgment as to the class'
claim of a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). He denied summary judgment as to the class' state-related
claims. Also, he denied both the class' motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and GMS' motion for decertification of a conditionally
certified collective action. Judge McVerry declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the class' state law claims.

On Oct. 1, 2015, the matter was transferred to the Court of Common
Pleas of Washington County. On Nov. 18, 2015, the class filed a
second amended complaint asserting claims that included: breach of
contract; unjust enrichment and violations of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") for which they sought relief under the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"). On Jan. 30,
2017, the Hon. Damon Faldowski granted the class' motion for class
certification.

Following jury selection on Sept. 17, 2018, the parties proceeded
to trial between Sept. 24 through 26, 2018. Much of the trial
evidence consisted of testimony of class members Bonds, Luke
Horvath, Shane Baker, Joshua Wade, Timothy Cramer and Joshua Roth,
all of whom worked for GMS at Consol Enlow Fork Mine. Mr. Bonds,
the class representative, described the hiring process with GMS.

The class members testifying at trial all indicated that GMS
workers for all shifts were required to report 15, and then shortly
thereafter, 30 minutes prior to their shift for the purpose of
getting onto a GMS shuttle which then transported them to the
Consol Mine bathhouse. Those miners who failed to make the shuttle
on time were disciplined or sent home. Post-shift, GMS Miners were
required to wait between 10 and 30 minutes for a shuttle to take
them to a satellite parking lot. GMS Supervisor, B.J. Gales, told
Mr. Bonds and other miners that no payment would be made for
additional pre and post shift time the miners were required to be
on premises. No payment was made for the early report time or
mandated attendance at pre-shift safety meetings which occurred two
to three times per week.

At the close of all evidence, the trial court granted a directed
verdict in favor of GMS with regard to the class' unjust enrichment
claim. Further, the trial court decided that the jury should first
determine the class' liability claims and special interrogatories
regarding the amounts of time the class was required to work pre
and post shift.

Following several hours of deliberation, the jury found for the
class. Among other things, the jury determined that the class
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that GMS violated the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and that the class proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that the van report time was 15
minutes before the stated shift for 30 days.

The trial court bifurcated the issue of a proper calculation of the
class' damages. At post-verdict conferences on Oct. 5, 2018, Nov.
14, 2018 and Nov. 16, 2018, the parties and the trial court
discussed the appropriate manner in which to proceed regarding the
calculation of the class' damages. At the Nov. 16, 2018 conference,
GMS counsel conceded that incomplete wage and hour records had been
supplied to the class. The trial court denied the class'
corresponding motion for sanctions due to GMS' non-disclosure as it
appeared to be an unintentional error.

On several occasions prior to trial, counsel for GMS argued that a
bifurcation of the damages calculation was necessary.

Ultimately, on April 16, 2019, the parties stipulated to an amount
of wage damages. The parties stipulated to wage damages in the
amount of $1,186,853.63 based upon the jury verdict. In addition to
te stipulated sum, the class also sought an award of attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S.A. Section 260.9a, liquidated
damages pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S.A. Section 260.10, and pre-judgment
interest.

On July 12, 2019, the parties appeared for argument on post-trial
motions. No testimony was presented regarding damages. Instead, on
the basis of their stipulation and respective submissions, the
parties put the matter to decision. On the basis of the parties'
post-trial motions, the trial court determined the following
issues: 1) The appropriate award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs; 2) The propriety of awarding liquidated damages; 3) The
propriety of awarding post-judgment interest; 4) Whether the trial
court erred in failing to grant summary judgment; 5) Whether the
trial court erred in failing to grant a compulsory non-suit or
direct a verdict on the class' PMWA/WPCL and breach of contract
claims; and 6) Whether the trial court erred in certifying and
refusing to decertify the class.

The trial court determined the class was entitled to attorneys'
fees in the amount of $349,865. It awarded the class costs in the
amount of $25,562.53. It further held the class was owed liquidated
damages in the amount of $405,028.64. It also gave it pre-judgment
interest in the amount of $418,132.07. The trial court held it
properly denied GMS' motion to decertify the class. It found GMS'
claim the trial court erred in denying summary judgment was not a
proper subject for a post-trial motion. Lastly, it held GMS was not
entitled to either a directed verdict and/or a judgment of
non-suit. The instant, timely appeal followed.

On appeal, GMS raises these issues for the Court's review --
whether the trial court:

   (1) misconstrued the statutory phrase hours worked?

   (2) erred in failing to find that the PMWA claim is precluded
       by collateral estoppel?

   (3) erred in failing to grant summary judgment, compulsory
       non-suit directed verdict, or new trial on the oral
       contract claim?

   (4) erred in failing to grant compulsory non-suit, directed
       verdict, or new trial on the PMWA claim for post-shift
       time?

   (5) abused its discretion in awarding fees incurred in another
       lawsuit?

   (6) erred in awarding liquidated damages?

   (7) abused its discretion in awarding pre-judgment interest?

In its first issue, GMS contends the trial court, "misconstrued the
statutory phrase 'hours worked.'" GMS claims that the Department of
Labor regulations defining the phrase 'hours worked' is an invalid
statutory interpretation violative of the Statutory Construction
Act. GMS also argues the regulation is invalid because DOL exceeded
the authority delegated to it by the legislature.

The Court disagrees. Judge Ford Elliott opines that as GMS does not
dispute the applicability of the Court's decision in Lugo v.
Farmer's Pride, Inc., 967 A.2d 963 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied,
980 A.2d 609 (Pa. 2009), to the matter, as the Court's review of
both Lugo and the certified record demonstrates the trial court
properly applied it, and as the Court has no authority to overturn
Lugo, it finds GMS' first claim to be wholly lacking in merit.

In its second issue, GMS argues the class' claims are precluded by
the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Court disagrees. Judge
Ford Elliott says that the Court has thoroughly reviewed the law
and the record and finds GMS' contention the class is estopped from
bringing its state law claims to be both disingenuous and absurd.
GMS provides no legal support for their contention when a federal
court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law
claims, the litigant is collaterally estopped from bringing those
claims in state court.

In its third and fourth issues, GMS maintains the trial court erred
in failing to grant summary judgment, a compulsory non-suit, a
directed verdict, or a new trial with respect to the breach of
contract and in the PMWA claim for post-shift time. The Court
disagrees.

Initially, the Panel notes that while GMS argues the trial court
erred in failing to grant any of the requests, it does not include
either the Court's standard of review or the trial court's standard
of review for any of these contentions in its brief. Moreover,
aside from citing to a few cases with respect to boilerplate
contract law standards, it does not cite to any cases which support
its contentions.

In its fifth issue, GMS contends the trial court erred in awarding
attorneys' fees for work done in preparation for the federal
lawsuit. However, Judge Ford Elliott notes, GMS' waived the claim.

GMS does not dispute the award of attorneys' fees in general, but
disputes the award of fees expended in the federal court case.
However, they admit they can find no legal support for their claim.
Moreover, GMS fails to provide any detailed information regarding
the facts underlying their claim. Thus, the Court is unable to
discern the basis of GMS' claims.

In its sixth issue, GMS complains the trial court erred in awarding
liquidated damages. The Court disagrees. Judge Ford Elliott also
notes that the Panel has reviewed the record and the briefs, and
that GMS has failed to meet its heavy burden of showing the trial
court abused its discretion in awarding pre-judgment interest.
Hence, GMS' final issue does not merit relief.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court finds GMS' claims are
either waived or do not merit relief. Therefore, the Panel
affirms.

Shogan, J. joins the Memorandum. Olson, J. concurs in the result.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 24, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7b7dozk from Leagle.com.


GOLDEN STATE: Appeal From Class Cert. Denial in Harris Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FLORENCE v. HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. B299125 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California
for the Second District dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal from the
trial court's order denying class certification.

Plaintiffs Harris, Maria Delgado, and Sylvia Beltran filed a
complaint against four utility companies for wage and hour
violations: Golden State provides water services to municipalities
statewide; Bear Valley Electric Service, which is owned by Golden
State, provides water services and distributes electricity to
customers in the Big Bear Lake community; American States Water Co.
is the parent company for Golden State and Bear Valley Electric and
provides water services within communities throughout the state;
and American States Utility Services, Inc., manages water,
wastewater, and utility services across the state and to military
installations.

The first amended complaint contained seven causes of action.  The
Plaintiffs alleged that they, and the proposed class members within
55 different job titles, were intentionally misclassified as exempt
employees even though the conditions of their employment, and the
work they actually performed, was that of non-exempt employees.
The first six causes of action alleged the Defendants failed to
provide rest and meal breaks, pay wages, pay overtime, and furnish
timely and accurate wage statements.  The seventh cause of action
alleged a violation of California's Unfair Competition Act under
Business and Professions Code1 section 17200.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a "subclass" of employees
within 20 job titles.  They asserted the Defendants "classify their
employees as exempt or non-exempt from the requirements of the
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage orders solely on the
basis of the employees' position grade level (salary range) without
regard to how employees actually spend their time on the job."  The
Plaintiffs also sought class certification for their section 17200
claim in the seventh cause of action.

The Defendants complained that the motion was filled with
misstatements, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations.  They argued
that an employee's "tasks cannot be determined from each position's
job description alone; rather, in order to determine how employees
in these positions" spend their time requires an individualized
inquiry.  They were specifically scornful of the Plaintiffs'
expert, a former attorney with the Department of Labor Standards
and Enforcement: She could not simply review the job titles and
render an opinion because such an opinion would be inadmissible at
trial.

In reply, the Plaintiffs argued the case was amendable to class
certification because there is evidence deliberate
misclassification is the Defendant's policy and practice, and these
classifications have resulted in de facto misclassification that
can be established by job titles and job descriptions alone.  Their
theories of liability require no individualized analysis and are
conducive to class treatment.

The trial court took the matter under submission and issued a
detailed ruling.  Citing United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases
(2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1015, the court found the Plaintiffs
had not presented substantial evidence demonstrating that their
claims were amendable to common proof.  It concluded that the
listing of generic job titles and descriptions, even if they
reflect actual job duties, was an "insufficient" showing.  Evidence
the misclassifications were deliberate, and the inclusion of the
opinion of a former DLSE attorney" that the job titles and job
descriptions in this case were adequate to certify a class, did not
change the calculus.

The Plaintiffs appeal from the order denying class certification.
Somewhat surprisingly, they appeal even though, as they acknowledge
in their brief, the trial court did not rule on their concurrent
request to certify a subclass under the seventh cause of action.
They suggest the Appellate Court should "reverse" and remand the
matter to the trial court for resolution of that issue. The
suggestion actually asks the Court to dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction under the one final judgment rule.

The Court opines that it is difficult to address the issue without
a copy of the purported order.  The Plaintiffs represented it was
attached to their letter brief, but none was.  Assuming a deadline
was set, there is nothing jurisdictional about it.  Whether to
enforce that filing deadline rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court.

The Court adds that it would be one thing if the Plaintiffs had
affirmatively alerted the court they were effectively dismissing
all other class claims.  That could have been done in numerous ways
in the motion or during argument in the trial court.  But the
motion to certify emphasized numerous times that the Plaintiffs
were seeking certification of a "subclass."  Even their opening
brief made that point.

Advising the Court now that "many" of the class claims not included
in the subclass were not viable when the motion was filed impliedly
recognizes that some of those class claims remain viable and could
be pursued, if allowed in the trial court's discretion.  And
advising it now that the "subclass" term really was meant to tell
the court below that they were seeking to certify something less
than the class as pled, seems more of an after-thought.  The death
knell doctrine is strictly construed.  It serves its purpose only
if the order is tantamount to a final dismissal of class claims.
The mere fact a court-imposed filing deadline has passed is not
enough, under these facts.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.  The Respondents will
recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y99zxqj7 from Leagle.com.

Skapik Law Group, Mark J. Skapik -- mskapik@skapiklaw.com --
Geralyn L. Skapik and Blair J. Berkley -- bjberkley@juno.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Epstein Becker & Green, Michael S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- and
Kevin D. Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against GoodRx Holdings, Inc.
("GoodRx" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:GDRX) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired GoodRx securities between September 23, 2020 to November
16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/gdrx.

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

The Complaint alleges that at the time of the initial public stock
offering (the "IPO"), the Company issued false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to
investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on September
23, 2020, GoodRX completed its IPO, selling about 34.6 million
shares at $33.00 per share. The complaint alleges that Defendants
timed the IPO before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical
business, making their statements in the Registration Statement and
during the Class Period about GoodRx's competitive position
materially false and/or misleading. The lawsuit also alleges that
due to these materially false and/or misleading statements, GoodRx
Class A common stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more
than $64 per share during the Class Period.

Then, just weeks later on November 17, 2020, Amazon announced its
Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, which was said to make
it "simple for customers to compare prices and purchase medications
for home delivery, all in one place." Following this news, GoodRx
Class A common stock dropped 23%, from $46.72 per share to $36.21
on November 17, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/gdrx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in GoodRx
you have until February 16, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock between September
23, 2020 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your GoodRx investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/goodrx-holdings-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

In September 2020, GoodRx completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling over 39.8 million common shares for $33 per share.
GoodRx provides consumers with free information and tools to
compare prices for prescription drugs. The Company primarily earns
revenue from its prescription transaction fees.

On November 17, 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") announced two new
pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program,
that would directly compete with GoodRx's platform.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.51, or 23%, to
close at $36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Amazon had
been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own
online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment
service; and (2) that Amazon's services would directly replicate
and compete with the GoodRx business model.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Class A common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
February 16, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired GoodRx
Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX)
securities during the period from September 23, 2020 through
November 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
February 16, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that at the time of the initial public stock
offering (the "IPO"), the Company issued false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to
investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on September
23, 2020, GoodRX completed its IPO. The lawsuit alleges that
Defendants timed the IPO before Amazon announced its online
pharmaceutical business, making their statements in the
Registration Statement and during the Class Period about GoodRx's
competitive position materially false and/or misleading. The
lawsuit also alleges that due to these materially false and/or
misleading statements, GoodRx Class A common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices of more than $64 per share during the
Class Period.

Then, just weeks later on November 17, 2020, Amazon announced its
Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, which was said to make
it "simple for customers to compare prices and purchase medications
for home delivery, all in one place." Following this news, GoodRx
Class A common stock dropped approximately 23%, from $46.72 per
share to $36.21 by close on November 17, 2020.

If you acquired GoodRx securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]



GOOGLE INC: Berger Montague Files Antitrust Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague PC filed an antitrust class action lawsuit on
behalf of a proposed class of "Publishers"—ad-supported online
content companies. The lawsuit, Sterling International Consulting
Group v. Google, LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, where Defendant
Google LLC is located. Sterling International Consulting Group
("SICG") alleges that Google engaged in a scheme to monopolize the
market for publisher ad server services.

SICG filed the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of all
Publishers that sell digital display advertising inventory through
a Google publisher ad server targeting consumers in the United
States between December 23, 2016 and the date the Court certifies
the class.

Publishers use ad servers to identify ad inventory created when
users load the Publishers' webpages and then solicit bids from
advertisers' ad tech agents to fill the ad slots. Publisher ad
servers are part of what is known as the "Ad Tech Stack," a series
of services that work together to facilitate the purchase and sale
of digital display ads on the web. Publisher ad servers directly
interface with sources of advertising demand such as ad exchanges
that conduct auctions between advertisers and notify the publisher
ad server of the winning bid prices. Other entities in the Ad Tech
Stack assist advertisers by optimizing advertiser bids in auctions
and storing, tracking, and serving advertisements.

According to the lawsuit, Google provides the dominant offerings at
each level of the Ad Tech Stack, positions Google gained through a
series of anticompetitive actions. First, Google engaged in a
series of acquisitions to gain footholds at each level of the Ad
Tech Stack, including most notably, Google's acquisition of
DoubleClick in 2007. Second, Google allegedly took control of a
substantial pool of advertisers' demand by tying its data services
to advertisers' use of Google's advertiser-facing ad tech
offerings. Specifically, Google's consumer-facing businesses (such
as Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube, Chrome, Android OS) provide Google
with an unparalleled source of user data that advertisers can use
to target their display ads and track their campaigns'
effectiveness. But to use those services to target users, Google
allegedly requires advertisers to use Google's ad tech offerings.
Third, Google allegedly used its control over how its advertiser
clients can bid on Publishers' ad inventory to essentially prevent
Publishers from accessing Google's pool of advertisers without
using Google's publisher ad server. Because Google allegedly
controls so much advertiser demand through this scheme, Publishers
are left with little choice but to use Google's ad server -- a fact
reflected in Google's alleged 90% market share.

Further, Google allegedly used its market position to inhibit
innovations that would have threatened its market dominance. For
example, when header bidding debuted, it offered Publishers a
potential way to access demand outside of the Google ad tech
offerings. Google feared that if a large competitor with access to
(1) significant user data, and (2) a large pool of advertisers,
adopted and endorsed header bidding, the resulting competition
would threaten Google's market share. In 2017, when Facebook
announced plans to do just that, Google reacted by allegedly
negotiating an agreement pursuant to which Facebook would not
directly compete with Google in ad tech offerings in exchange for
Google offering Facebook privileged positions in Google's ad
auctions.

SICG alleges that Google's scheme suppresses the ad revenues
Publishers can generate on their content.

"This lawsuit seeks to restore free and fair competition to an
industry that, we allege, has been intentionally captured and
controlled by one dominant player through an illegal predatory
scheme," explained Michael Dell'Angelo, Managing Shareholder of
Berger Montague, a leading complex litigation firm.

According to Patrick Madden, a Shareholder at Berger Montague,
"Publishers have been impaired in their ability to monetize their
digital content for years. The industry has seen layoffs, decreased
investigative and other investment-heavy reporting, and a
corresponding reduction in content quality. This lawsuit seeks to
rectify that and restore Publishers' ability to receive fair
compensation for the content they create."

Berger Montague is a national plaintiffs' class action and complex
litigation law firm headquartered in Philadelphia with additional
offices in Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and San Diego. Berger
Montague litigates complex civil cases and class actions in federal
and state courts throughout the United States. In its 50 years of
operation, the Firm has pioneered the use of class actions and
recovered well over $36 billion for its clients and the class
members it has represented.

Contacts

Michael Dell'Angelo
Managing Shareholder
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3080
mdellangelo@bm.net

Patrick Madden
Shareholder
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3035
pmadden@bm.net [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Settles Google+ Class Action for $7.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that Google
LLC agreed in early January to pay $7.5 million to settle putative
class-action litigation filed in connection with its discontinued
Google+ media platform.

The story about the settlement was the fourth most read risk
management-related article on Business Insurance's website in
2020.

Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., acknowledged that software bugs in
its Google+ social media platform potentially exposed users'
profile information, including their personal information, to
unauthorized third parties. There was no evidence the data was
accessed, according to the plaintiffs' settlement motion.

In July, a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose,
California, charged that Google recorded what people were doing on
hundreds of thousands of mobile apps even if they followed the
company's recommended settings for stopping such monitoring.

In September, Alphabet reached a $310 million settlement in a
shareholder lawsuit that accused the company of paying lavish exit
packages to executives found responsible for sexual misconduct,
saying it would increase oversight of its diversity and equity
efforts.

Alphabet said the settlement would fund diversity initiatives and
prohibit severance packages for employees subject to pending
investigations for sexual misconduct or retaliation. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Sterling International Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling International Consulting Group, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-09321
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2020), is brought under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act for treble damages and other relief arising out of
Google's overarching anticompetitive scheme to capture a dominant
share of the revenues associated with services required to place
open-web display ads. Specifically, Google has obtained and
maintained a monopoly in the market for providing publisher ad
server services (the "Publisher Ad Server Market"), and has used
that power to artificially inflate its prices charged to
"Publishers."

The Plaintiff is a "Publisher": the Plaintiff operates a website on
which it sells space to advertisers to place digital display ads.
To sell its ad space, the Plaintiff directly purchases publisher ad
server services from Google. Publisher ad servers identify ad space
that gets created when users load Publishers' webpages, and then
solicit and organize bids from various sources of advertiser demand
to fill the space. Publisher ad server providers receive
compensation in a form of a cut of the payments advertisers make
for their ads to appear in Publishers' webpages. The Plaintiff,
like other purchasers of Google's publisher ad server services,
depends on Google to solicit and organize bids from advertisers for
its website's ad inventory.

According to the complaint, Google has illegally acquired enhanced,
and maintained dominant positions in the Publisher Ad Server Market
through a series of anticompetitive acts beginning by at least 2007
and continuing through the present (together, the "Scheme"). First,
Google engaged in a series of acquisitions designed to give it a
significant market presence at each level of the Ad Tech Stack.
Most notably, Google acquired DoubleClick in 2007, a company with
the then-highest market share in the Publisher Ad Server Market.
Second, Google engaged in exclusionary conduct designed to entrench
its offerings at each level of the Ad Tech Stack and disadvantage
actual and potential rivals. Third, as more and more Publishers
adopted Google's publisher ad server products, Google reinforced
its control on the advertiser side of the Ad Tech Stack through
similar conduct. In particular, Google gave its own demand sources
(e.g., bids from its ad exchange) privileged access to Google's
Publisher-clients' ad space through its control over a dominant
share of Publishers' ad servers. Fourth, Google has taken a variety
of measures to impair potential rivals' ability to collect user
data and use such data to target advertisements. Fifth, according
to the complaint filed by the Texas Attorney General (and other
state attorneys general), Google made an unlawful agreement with
its largest potential rival—Facebook, Inc. Through the agreement
the two advertising behemoths agreed to cooperate rather than
compete. Such conduct removed significant competitive pressure on
Google.

The absence of competition in the Publisher Ad Server Market caused
by Google's Scheme allows Google to charge Publishers
supracompetitive prices for its publisher ad server services.
Because Google's Scheme has effectively destroyed competition in
the Publisher Ad Server Market, Publishers have no choice but to
pay the supracompetitive prices—extracted as a percentage of
their advertising revenue. Google's conduct has had substantial
anticompetitive effects in the Publisher Ad Server Market and has
harmed Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class accordingly seek compensatory and
injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff operates an ad-supported website that uses a Google
publisher ad server to identify the creation of ad inventory,
obtain bids from demand sources, and fill the ad space.

Google offers myriad "free" services to consumers, such as Google
Search, Google Chrome, Google Maps, YouTube, and Android OS. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (619) 489-0300
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: srios@bm.net

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angel, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          Michaela Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: ecramer@bm.net
                 mdellangelo@bm.net
                 pmadden@bm.net
                 mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 792-6676
          Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


GORILLA FITNESS: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA
---------------------------------------------
Gorilla Fitness, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gorilla Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10632 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

Gorilla Fitness, LLC is an online fitness store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GRASSROOTS CLOTHING: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grassroots Clothing,
LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Grassroots Clothing, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10977 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Grassroots California -- https://www.grassrootscalifornia.com/ --
bridges the gap between streetwear and counter-culture fashion for
those who like to stand out.[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


GREATER BALTIMORE: Court Revives Injunctive Relief Class in Silver
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland vacates the circuit
court's denial of the proposed class for injunctive relief in the
lawsuit entitled ENOCH SILVER, III v. GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3491, September Term 2018 (Md.
App.).

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. The Circuit Court for Baltimore
City denied Silver's motion to certify two proposed classes for the
action -- one for damages and another for injunctive relief.
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 Silver's case for
lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Silver's brief presents three issues, which the Appellate Court
has consolidated into one: Whether the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying Silver's class-certification motion.

Judge Christopher B. Kehoe, writing for the Panel, answers in the
negative as to the proposed damages class. However, the Appellate
does agree with the circuit court's reasoning as to the proposed
class for injunctive relief. It affirms the circuit court's
judgment in part, vacates it in part and remands the case for
further proceedings.

Background

The medical-records charges Silver's lawsuit arises out of three
separate requests for medical records from three unaffiliated
hospitals: Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Medstar Union Memorial
Hospital, and The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

In September 2016, Silver filed a two-count complaint in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, proposing to bring a class-action
lawsuit against all three hospitals. In one count, Silver alleged
that the hospitals' "exorbitant" medical-records charges violated
Md. Code, Section 4-304(c) of the Health-General Article, which
limits the fees that healthcare providers may charge for the
provision of medical records.

In the other count of his complaint, Silver alleged that the
hospitals' unreasonable charges, along with their failure to inform
requesters that they could access electronic records in electronic
format for a lower fee, violated the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act, codified at Md. Code, tit. 13 of the Commercial Law Article.

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 ultimately denied Silver's class-certification
motion. It concluded that Silver's proposed damages class failed to
satisfy the "more stringent" predominance and superiority
requirements of that part of Md. Rule 2-231. The tendency of the
individual issues to overwhelm the common issues also meant that a
class action "would not be an efficient or economical method of
adjudication," the circuit court decided.

The circuit court also declined to certify the proposed
injunctive-relief class. In explaining why, the court noted that
"the primary purpose of a Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2)] class action is
non-monetary relief. It also noted the theoretical possibility of a
"hybrid class action," in which a class could be certified under
more than one section of Md. Rule 2-231(c). But because a damages
class could not be certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3), the court
said, a hybrid class action will not be considered. And without
appearing to consider the possibility of a non-hybrid class -- that
is, a class seeking purely injunctive relief, certified under Md.
Rule 2-231(c)(2) alone -- the circuit court decided Silver's
proposed injunctive-relief class could not be certified.

Because the circuit court did not certify either of the classes,
Silver's individual claims were insufficient to meet the $5,000
minimum amount in controversy required to proceed in the circuit
court. Accordingly, the circuit court granted the hospitals'
unopposed motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Silver filed a timely appeal.

Discussion and Opinion

Mr. Silver's sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court
erred in denying his motion to certify his proposed classes. He
argues, as he did before the circuit court, that the damages class
satisfied the requirements of Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3) and that the
injunctive-relief class satisfied the conditions of Md. Rule
2-231(c)(2). Silver maintains that the circuit court abused its
discretion in concluding otherwise.

In addressing Silver's appellate arguments, Judge Kehoe notes that
the Appellate Court will focus on whether Silver's proposed classes
should have been certified with respect to his claim alleging the
hospitals charged unreasonable fees in violation of Health-Gen.
This is because Silver's second claim -- namely, that the hospitals
violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by charging fees that
exceeded the limits imposed by Health-Gen. Section 4-304(c) -- is
based on factual and legal contentions that are essentially
identical to those presented by the standalone claim for violations
of the medical-records law itself.

Mr. 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.

Judge Kehoe opines that these arguments are not persuasive. He says
that none of Silver's arguments convince the Panel 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). He states that the Panel is not persuaded that
the circuit court's superiority conclusion and determination
amounted to an abuse of discretion. The Judge adds, among other
things, that the Panel finds no fault in the way that the circuit
court handled the subclass issue (or rather non-issue as the matter
was never raised to that court).

Judge Kehoe notes that the Silver's motion to certify his proposed
injunctive-relief class received relatively little attention (in
fact, almost none) in the proceedings before the circuit court. In
their motion opposing certification, the hospitals gave several
reasons why the court should not certify the injunctive-relief
class under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2). The hospitals said, among other
things, that the "primary relief" sought by Silver was "money
damages"; his claim for injunctive relief was "truly secondary." On
this basis alone, the hospitals said, certification under Md. Rule
2-231(c)(2) should be denied.

As the Panel understands its analysis, the circuit court concluded
that because it had decided that the proposed damages class could
not be certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3), no "hybrid" action was
possible and, therefore, the injunctive-relief class could not be
certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2).

Judge Kehoe writes that the Panel agrees with Silver that the
circuit court's analysis misses the mark. That Silver's proposed
damages class sought primarily monetary relief would have precluded
certification of the damages class under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2). And
this means that the only way to have certified both of Silver's
proposed classes was in a "hybrid" action--with the damages class
certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3) and the injunctive-relief
class separately certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2), as Silver
requested in his motion for class certification.

The circuit court's conclusion that the damages class could not be
certified under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(3) ensured Silver's action, if it
proceeded, would not be a "hybrid" action. But the decision to not
certify the damages class did not, in and of itself, preclude the
court from certifying Silver's proposed injunctive-relief class
under Md. Rule 2-231(c)(2), if the court concluded that the
proposed class independently satisfied the requirements for
certification under Md. Rule 2-231, Judge Kehoe opines.

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 Appellate Court 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). Accordingly, it vacates the judgment of the circuit
court in part and remands the case for the circuit court to decide
whether to certify Silver's proposed injunctive-relief class. The
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. Costs are to be divided evenly between the Appellant and
the Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y75zfcm9 from Leagle.com.


GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company, together with
Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's
Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.

On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.

The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

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

Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Securities Class Suit in CA Voluntarily Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidewire Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the putative
securities class action suit filed before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, has been
voluntarily dismissed.

In July 2020, one of the Company's stockholders filed a putative
securities class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company
and certain of its current or former officers and directors.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and was seeking unspecified
compensatory damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2020, the suit was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by plaintiff's counsel.

Guidewire Software, Inc. delivers the platform Property and
Casualty insurers trust to engage, innovate, and grow efficiently.
Guidewire's platform combines core operations, digital engagement,
analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications delivered
as a cloud service or self-managed software. The company is based
in San Mateo, California.


HAYT HAYT: Barenbaum Suit Parties Seek Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BARENBAUM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-04120-BMS (E.D. Pa.),
the Parties will move the Court on January 6, 2021 to enter an
order certifying this case to proceed as a class action, and
granting final approval of the Parties' settlement, on behalf of
the following class:

   "all consumers residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
   who received a 'Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution'
   from the Defendant on an obligation owed or allegedly owed to
   Midland Funding, LLC, during the time period of September 25,
   2017 to September 24, 2018, and who thereafter appeared as
   directed at the date, time and location noticed for the
   Deposition."

Founded in 1929, the Law Firm of Hayt, Hayt and Landau has been
serving the needs of creditors nationwide.

A copy of joint motion for final approval of class settlement
agreement dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2WRuFmW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shannon Miller, Esq.
          MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
          10 West Front Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 789-7157
          E-mail: smiller@mauricewutscher.com

HEALTHEQUITY INC: Appeal in Suit vs. WageWorks Pending
------------------------------------------------------
HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the appeal related to
a consolidated class action suit against WageWorks, Inc. initiated
by its common stock purchasers remains pending.

On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of
WageWorks, Inc., pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, for
$51.35 per share in cash, or approximately $2.0 billion to
WageWorks stockholders.

WageWorks is pursuing affirmative claims against the Office of
Personnel Management to obtain payment for services provided by
WageWorks between March 1, 2016 and August 31, 2016 pursuant to its
contract with OPM. In connection with WageWorks' claims against
OPM, OPM has also claimed that an erroneous statement in a
certificate signed by a former executive officer constituted a
violation of the False Claims Act and moved to dismiss part of
WageWorks' claim against OPM as a result. As with all legal
proceedings, no assurance can be provided as to the outcome of
these matters or if WageWorks or OPM will be successful.

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 16,
2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks, its
former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock between
May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its board of directors at the time of that offering.

On June 22, 2018 and September 6, 2018, two derivative lawsuits
were filed against certain of WageWorks' former officers and
directors and WageWorks (as nominal defendant) in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The actions
were consolidated. On July 23, 2018, a similar derivative lawsuit
was filed against certain former WageWorks' officers and directors
and WageWorks (as nominal defendant) in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (together, the "Derivative
Suits").

The allegations in the Derivative Suits relate to substantially the
same facts as those underlying the Securities Class Action
described above. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and fees
and costs.

Plaintiffs in the Superior Court action filed an amended
consolidated complaint on October 28, 2019, naming as defendants
certain former officers and directors of WageWorks and alleging a
direct claim of "inseparable fraud/breach of fiduciary duty" on
behalf of a class. WageWorks was not named as a party in that
complaint.

On June 24, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
notice of appeal.

WageWorks voluntarily contacted the San Francisco office of the SEC
Division of Enforcement regarding the restatement of WageWorks'
financial statements and related independent investigation.
WageWorks is providing information and documents to the SEC and
continues to cooperate with the SEC's investigation into these
matters.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California
also opened an investigation. WageWorks has provided documents and
information to the U.S. Attorney's Office and continues to
cooperate with any inquiries by the U.S. Attorney's Office
regarding the matter.

WageWorks previously entered into indemnification agreements with
its former directors and officers and, pursuant to these
indemnification agreements, is covering the defense of its former
directors and officers in the legal proceedings described above.

HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS. This
designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health
savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the
funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah.

HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December
10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc.
and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been denied.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.  

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017,
three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand.

Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On
December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case
pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and
require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.

On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of these sixteen
arbitration named plaintiffs have been resolved.

Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation and these
claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration process.

The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third
Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020.


On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On July 9, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 15, 2020,
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint was
denied.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.

HOLISTIC PATIENT: Hunter Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holistic Patient
Wellness Group Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Kasandra
Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Holistic Patient Wellness Group Incorporated, East Valley
Patient Wellness Group Incorporated doing business as: Sol Flower;
Arizona corporations, Case No. 2:20-cv-02478-DWL (D. Ariz., Dec.
28, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.

Holistic Patient Wellness Group --
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Holistic-Patient-Wellness-Group/ --
is a marijuana dispensary located in Clifton, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mariam Grigorian, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: mgrigorian@shamisgentile.com


HORIZON FREIGHT: Court Certifies Truck Drivers Class in Nash Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN NASH v. HORIZON
FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order:

1. granting Nash's motion to certify a class of "California drivers
who contracted with and drove for Horizon from February 22, 2015 to
the present."

2. denying Horizon's motion to stay without prejudice to renewing
the request when the issues in the cases pending before the
California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit are more immediately
relevant to the issues in this case;

3. granting requests for judicial notice;

4. denying Horizon's motion to seal on the ground that it's grossly
overbroad. This denial is without prejudice to filing a more
narrowly tailored motion within 14 days of the date of this order.
If no such motion is filed, the exhibit will simply be unsealed;

5. scheduling a case management conference on Tuesday, February 2,
at 2 p.m. via zoom.

Marvin Nash brought this suit against Horizon Freight Systems on
behalf of himself and other truck drivers who contract with Horizon
to perform drayage services in California. The contract these
drivers must sign, called the Equipment Lease and Service
Agreement, classifies them as independent contractors. Nash
contends this classification is incorrect because the drivers act
as Horizon's employees, entitled to the benefits and protections
afforded to employees (but not independent contractors) under
California law. After extensive motion practice, three of Nash's
claims remain: (1) a claim for reimbursement of business-related
expenses under California Labor Code section 2802; (2) a claim for
statutory damages based on inaccurate wage statements under
California Labor Code section 226; and (3) a claim under
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Court said, "As part of its predominance argument, Horizon also
argues that individual questions about whether truck drivers were
engaged in a "distinct occupation or business" -- one of the
relevant factors under the Borello test -- makes class
certification improper. Horizon emphasizes that drivers who
contract with Horizon have the option to hire third parties to
complete the routes that the contracted drivers are assigned, and
are also able to drive for other companies while still under
contract with Horizon. Horizon thus argues that common issues do
not predominate because determining whether a driver was improperly
classified as an independent contractor will require looking at
their specific personal history and whether they hired third
parties or worked for other trucking companies. Several judges have
declined to certify proposed classes of drivers based on their
conclusion that individualized inquiries under this "distinct
occupation or business" factor defeated predominance. Borello
factor, while not placing enough faith in the ability of trial
courts to manage a class action when there is variance on this one
factor but commonality on all the others. After all, the plaintiffs
need only show that common questions "predominate" over individual
questions, not that common questions exist to the complete
exclusion of individual questions. But in any event, the proposed
class of drivers is relatively small and the records on whether
these drivers hired third parties or drove for other companies are
well-kept and readily ascertainable. It will be easy to determine
which of the approximately 110 proposed class members engaged in
either of these business practices, and to carve out a subclass of
these drivers if necessary."

Since 1983, Horizon Freight System has provided Intermodal Trucking
(including international and domestic), Heavy Haul/Over-Dimensional
Transportation, and Third Party Logistics Services.

A copy of the Court's order granting motion for class certification
dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KG4Eo7 at no extra charge.[CC]

HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Filing of Consolidated Arguelles Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California authorized the Plaintiffs in the
cases, BRENDA ARGUELLES, et al., Related case Plaintiffs v.
HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, and MARIA VILLALOBOS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01729-MCE-KJN, 2:15-cv-02366-MCE-KJN
(E.D. Cal.), to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Following the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
the consolidated action will be remanded to the Superior Court of
the State of California, for the County of San Diego.  The clerk
will take steps to remand the action to the San Diego County
Superior Court.

Judge England vacated all pending matters and dates set before the
Court.  The Court has been informed that all parties have reached
an agreement resolving the action in its entirety, and intend to
seek Court approval of the settlement and final judgment in the
Superior Court.  Should these efforts fail and judgment not be
entered, or not become final, upon the stipulation of the parties,
or upon motion by one or more parties, the Court will resume
jurisdiction over the consolidated action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9yqlv5r from Leagle.com.

Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Douglas W.
Perlman -- douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com -- RASTEGAR LAW GROUP,
A.P.C., in Torrance, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Brenda
Arguelles, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated Current and former employees of Defendants.


HU MASTER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hu Master Holdings
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hu
Master Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10960 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28,
2020).

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

Hu Master Holdings LLC -- https://hukitchen.com/ -- provides food
catering services. The Company offers its services in the United
States.[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


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to C.D. Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Fabian Gonzalez and Lori Sanchez,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hub International Limited,
erroneously sued as Hub International Midwest Limited and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, was transferred from the
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino with the assigned
Case No. CIVDS1900463 to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 16, 2020, and assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-02600-DMG-SHK.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other.

HUB International Limited is an insurance brokerage providing an
array of property, casualty, risk management, life and health,
employee benefits, investment, and wealth management products and
services across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are presented by:

   Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: norm@bamlawca.com

     - and -

   Andrew Gavin Ronan, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and De Blouw LLP
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 367-9913
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: Andrew@bamlawca.com

     - and -

   Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: aj@bamlawca.com

     - and -

   Christine LeVu, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: christine@bamlawca.com

     - and -

   Jeffrey Scott Herman, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
   2255 Calle Clara
   San Diego, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: jeffrey@bamlawca.com

     - and -

   Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq.
   Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
   2255 Calle Clara
   La Jolla, CA 92037
   Tel: (858) 551-1223
   Fax: (858) 551-1232
   Email: Kyle@bamlawca.com



INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland), is still pending.

Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland).

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

IGC, Ram Mukunda, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as
defendants. On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou
litigation filed an amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and
Claudia Grimaldi, thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants.


The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading
statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press
release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink
Space" and related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had
"executed a distribution and partnership agreement" for the
sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related
public statements.

The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount
of damages they seek. On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder
class actions were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was
designated as the lead case.

On October 11, 2019, Company and the other the Class Action
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder
class action litigation on a number of grounds, including that the
Class Action Defendants did not make any false or misleading
statements or any materially false or misleading statements to the
public; the Class Action Defendants did not act with any intent to
deceive the public, nor did they recklessly do so; and that the
Class Action Defendants' alleged conduct did not cause any loss
allegedly suffered by the class action plaintiffs.

The motion to dismiss remains pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Company
anticipates that a decision may be issued by March 31, 2021,
although it can provide no assurances of the same.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical
Cannabis-Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in
2005 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland.

INFINITY DIAGNOSTIC: Faces Class Action Over Fake COVID-19 Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Levine, writing for Atlantic Daily Voice, reports that at
least four people have joined a class-action lawsuit filed against
a North Jersey company accused of selling bogus COVID-19 tests in
at least one South Jersey location, NorthJersey.com reports.

Filed Dec. 15 in Atlantic County Superior Court, the suit alleges
Infinity Diagnostic Labs -- headquartered in Teterboro --
advertised antibody tests as $75 rapid coronavirus tests.

The tests were distributed out of Infinity's Ventnor City location,
which shuttered following an FBI raid earlier in December, the news
outlet says.

"Infinity put corporate profit ahead of people's health and
well-being by advertising, selling and administering a fake active
COVID test which they knew would not diagnose persons who were
actually infected with this dreadful disease," the suit reads.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains only saliva or
nasal swab tests can detect a current COVID-19 infection -- not
finger-stick tests, which are only used to detect antibodies that
develop weeks after an infection.

Infinity, however, advertised finger-stick blood tests as rapid
COVID-19 tests.

After its investigation, the FBI warned those who visited
Infinity's Ventnor site to get retested for COVID-19.

Infinity Diagnostic Labs has locations in Kearny, Hoboken, Union
City, Hazlet, Sewell, Jersey City, Newark, Bloomfield and Cape May,
its website says. [GN]



INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a stockholder class action suit entitled, Sears
v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL.

on March 23, 2020, a Stockholder Class Action Complaint was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a Company stockholder and
purported class representative Samuel P. Sears, commencing
litigation captioned Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No.
2020-0215-JTL.

The Class Action followed a request for, and subsequent provision
of, certain books and records of the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C.
Section 220.

The defendants named in the Class Action are identical to those
named in the Action, with the exception that the Company is not a
party to the litigation.

The Class Action asserts two direct breach of fiduciary duty
claims-one against Mayne, the other against the Individual
Defendants-and the facts underlying those claims almost entirely
mirror those alleged in the Action.

The Company believes the Class Action is legally and factually
baseless, and the Individual Defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously.

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

Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for patients with cancer and
non-cancerous proliferation disorders. Inhibitor Therapeutics
operates in the State of Florida. The company is based in Tampa,
Florida.

INTER CONNECTION: Mota FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MOTA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. INTER CONNECTION
ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07530-GBD (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      ("FLSA") collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b), on behalf of:

      "current and former employees of Defendant Inter
      Connection Electric, Inc. ("ICE"), who performed
      electrical work at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York City
      between September 14, 2014, and September 14, 2020, but
      who were not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half
      times their regular rate of pay, which was the prevailing
      wage rate for electricians ($56 per hour);"

   2. authorizing the distribution of notice, by various means,
      to potentially affected individuals, requiring the
      disclosure of the putative collective members' contact
      information; and

   3. equitably tolling the statute of limitations as of the
      date of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
      Certification, and for any other such relief as the Court
      finds just and proper.

Between 2018 and 2020, ICE employed the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees to perform electrical work at the
Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Plaintiff Mota worked at the Yard as part
of this long-term project from February 2019 to October 2019. His
responsibilities included providing temporary and permanent power;
installing PVC conduit and electrical wiring; bending pipes and
adding electrical wiring for electrical rooms, elevator rooms, and
telecom rooms; and providing EMT pipes, wires, and mounted lights
inside and outside buildings. The Opt-in Plaintiffs Anyer Gervacio,
Victor Joseph, and Steven Lora have declared that they performed
substantially similar, if not identical, work at the Yard.

The Plaintiffs contend that despite working as electricians on a
public works project and therefore being entitled to a prevailing
wage rate of $56 per hour and an overtime rate of $84 per hour,
they were paid a regular rate of only $42 per hour and an overtime
rate of only $62-63 per hour. This was in stark contrast to other
electricians employed by the Defendant, who were paid the
appropriate prevailing wage and overtime rates.

The Defendant ICE is an electrical contractor that has been in
business since 1990. It engages in all phases of electrical
installation, from main electrical power entrance service and
emergency generators installation to fire alarm systems, data and
voice communications.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion for conditional
certification dated Dec. 28, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hpm9oS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          Raya F. Saksouk, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Fl.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088

INTER CONNECTION: Mota Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MOTA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. INTER CONNECTION
ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07530-GBD (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. authorizing the distribution of notice, by various means,
      to potentially affected individuals;

   3. requiring the disclosure of the putative collective
      members' contact information; and

   4. equitably tolling the statute of limitations as of the
      date of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification,
      and for any other such relief as the Court finds just and
      proper.

Inter Connection Electric, Inc. provides electrical contracting
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion for conditional
certification dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hnk3pn at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          Raya F. Saksouk, Esq.
          BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33rd Fl.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088

INTERFACE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 11 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)
Class Period: March 2, 2018 - September 28, 2020
Deadline: January 11, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/tile

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
consequently, Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated
income and earnings per share ("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (3)
Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") with respect to the
foregoing issues since at least as early as November 2017, had
impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope of
the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC
investigation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)
Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2020
Deadline: January 12, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/biib

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary
data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did
not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE: BABA)
Class Period: July 20, 2020 - November 3, 2020
Deadline: January 12, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/baba

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications or
disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain
impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would
impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant
Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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


INTERFACE INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE). Federman & Sherwood reminds
current and former shareholders of Interface, Inc. that they only
have until Monday, January 11, 2021 to move the court for
appointment as a lead plaintiff in this case. The Complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you purchased Interface, Inc. shares between March 2, 2018 and
September 28, 2020, have large losses as a result of your trades
during this time period, and wish to join this litigation as a
potential lead plaintiff, please contact our office as soon as
possible or visit:
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-reminds-investors-of-imminent-lead-plaintiff-deadline-in-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-interface-inc/

Our firm seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Federman
& Sherwood has extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting
securities litigation involving financial fraud. We represent
investors throughout the country in shareholder litigation.

Contacts:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
(405) 235-1560/Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com - www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


INTERFACE INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of January 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in TILE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/interface-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11793&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Interface, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently,
Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and
earnings per share ("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and
certain of its employees were under investigation by the SEC with
respect to the foregoing issues since at least as early as November
2017, had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true
scope of the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the
SEC investigation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders have until January 11, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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


INTUIT INC: $40 Million Settlement Awaits Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2020, that the company entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the putative class action for a
payment of $40 million, which is subject to court approval.

Beginning in May 2019, various legal proceedings were filed and
certain regulatory inquiries were commenced in connection with the
company's provision and marketing of free online tax preparation
programs.

The company believes that the allegations contained within these
legal proceedings are without merit. The company is vigorously
defending its interests in the legal proceedings and cooperating in
the inquiries.

These proceedings include multiple putative class actions that were
consolidated into a single putative class action in the Northern
District of California in September 2019 and demands for
arbitration that were filed beginning in October 2019.

On November 12, 2020, Intuit entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the putative class action for a payment of $40 million,
which is subject to court approval.

Since the court could approve, reject, or ask the parties to modify
the settlement, the ultimate outcome of this matter remains
uncertain.

Intuit said, "In view of the complexity and ongoing nature of these
proceedings and inquiries, at this time we are unable to estimate a
reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss that
we may incur to resolve or settle these matters."

Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products
and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and
accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and
internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.

IRWIN COUNTY, GA: Immigrant Women Sue Over Unwanted Hysterectomies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Several dozen immigrant women who were held in a Georgia detention
center have filed a class action against an Irwin County jail and
its operators, claiming they were subject to nonconsensual and
often unnecessary medical procedures while kept behind bars.

According to NBC News, about 40 women have so far filed sworn
testimony in the case. Their attorneys say the breadth of
experiences and reports "[reveals] a relentless pattern of
unnecessary and non-consensual medical procedures, including
unwanted gynecological surgeries and other non-consensual medical
interventions."

As LegalReader reported earlier this year, many of the women claim
to have been victimized by Dr. Mahendra Amin, who practices out of
Ocilla, Georgia, and was contracted by the Irwin County Detention
Center.

Both ICE and LaSalle Corrections, the private contractor tasked
with maintain order at Irwin, are named as defendants in the suit.

Since September, numerous women have alleged that Dr. Amin
performed unauthorized -- and often unnecessary --hysterectomies on
them.

In many cases, Amin purportedly performed hysterectomies -- a
surgical procedure in which part or all of a woman's uterus is
removed -- on Spanish-speaking women, many of whom appeared not to
understand either the implications of such procedures or why they
had received them in the first place.

One woman, named by The Associated Press as Cardentey Fernandez,
39, had repeatedly claimed to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officials of ovarian cysts. Fernandez was
scheduled to undergo treatment -- but was never told exactly what
Dr. Amin did to her. While her medical records indicate she was due
to be treated for cysts, they run blank as soon as she was passed
over to Amin.

Other women say they were pressured into removing vital
reproductive organs or appendages, even when such removals were not
medically necessary. In some cases, Amin may have made unilateral
decisions to perform hysterectomies without giving his patients the
opportunity to offer or refuse consent.

The class action further claims that many of the inmates who did
speak out against Dr. Amin -- whether they criticized him or
attempted to report him for wrongdoing -- faced retaliation. Irwin
County Detention Center staff reportedly placed whistleblowers in
solitary confinement; in some cases, they have may physically
abused detainees, threatened them with deportation, or even
facilitated deportation.

The 160-page lawsuit demands "an immediate end to retaliation
against women for speaking out, compensation for the harms they
have suffered, and writs from the court requiring ICE to make the
women available to fully participate in this lawsuit, or
alternatively, to release the women from the detention center."

Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director for Project South
and co-counsel on the suit, suggested that the detention center
should be immediately shuttered.

"We are seeking an immediate end to the egregious retaliation
against the women who spoke out against the abuse, release of the
women who have suffered medical abuse, and compensation for the
harms that survivors suffered," Shahshahani said in a statement.
"It is high time for this facility rife with human rights
violations to be shut down and for ICE and LaSalle to be held
accountable."

"The main demand," Shahshahani added, "has always been to shut this
place down. Human rights violations have been occurring at Irwin
for a number of years and so there's no reason this facility should
still be operating. [GN]



JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Woods Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAKEISHA WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00199-TBR (W.D. Ky.,
December 17, 2020) challenges the Defendant's alleged abusive,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violations of
the Fir Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to Verizon Wireless for medical treatment obtained.
Verizon Wireless has contracted with the Defendant to collect the
alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about May 20, 2020. However, the letter
failed to state who the current creditor is. Instead, it listed
Verizon Wireless as a "Debt Description", but not as the current
creditor.

Thereby, the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e for using
false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


JIM FALK MOTORS: Sedaghatfar Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZA SEDAGHATFAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JIM FALK MOTORS OF BEVERLY HILLS,
INC. d/b/a JIM FALK LEXUS OF BEVERLY HILLS, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11399
(C.D. Cal., December 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for their alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a text message on
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6811 beginning
in or about May 15, 2018 in an attempt to promote its products and
services. The text message received by the Plaintiff was placed via
the Defendant's SMS Blasting Platform, which is an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff contends that he
never provided the Defendant his "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an ATDS on her cellular telephone.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who received
solicitation/telemarketing text messages, were harmed causing them
to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they
had previously paid, and invading their privacy.

Jim Falk Motors of Beverly Hills, Inc. d/b/a Jim Falk Lexus of
Beverly Hills is an automotive dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOSEPH ENTERPRISES: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JOSEPH ENTERPRISES,
INC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. JOSEPH ENTERPRISES,
INC., d/b/a CHIA.COM, Case No. 2:20-cv-06287 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28,
2020).

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

Joseph Enterprises, Inc. -- http://chia.com/-- is a San Francisco,
California-based gadget company owned by Joseph Pedott.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JP MORGAN: Can Compel Arbitration in Bouskos Suit, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BOUSKOS, individually and behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01431-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff Bouskos was employed by the Defendant as a home lending
advisor to provide direct lending services to homebuyers.  In the
proposed class action, the Plaintiff asserts five claims alleging
the Defendant committed various violations of wage and hour
employment law established by California Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders and one claim alleging that
the Defendant violated California's unfair competition law,
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.

On March 11, 2020, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims, relying on the arbitration agreement
and class action waiver provision which appear in the employment
agreement plaintiff signed with the Defendant.  On March 31, 2020,
the Plaintiff filed his opposition to the pending motion, and on
April 14, 2020, the Defendant filed a reply.

The Defendant contends that the Court must compel arbitration of
the Plaintiff's employment-related claims on an individual basis
because the Plaintiff signed an employment agreement which contains
both an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver provision.
It further requests that the Court dismiss this action or stay the
proceedings pending arbitration.  The Plaintiff opposes the pending
motion on the grounds that he believes the class action waiver
provision exempts class actions from the arbitration requirement by
its terms.

Judge Drozd finds that the signed arbitration agreement contained
in the Plaintiff's offer letter was validly formed.  Because the
Plaintiff's claims are "Covered Claims" pursuant to the parties'
arbitration agreement and because the parties' class action waiver
is enforceable, the Judge is required by the Federal Arbitration
Act to order the Plaintiff pursue his claims on an individual basis
in arbitration.

A stay of the action pending the resolution of arbitration is
required by the FAA because all of the Plaintiff's claims are
subject to arbitration.  The Judge declines to exercise discretion
to dismiss the action.  Accordingly, the Court proceedings are
stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration.

For these reasons, Judge Drozd granted the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration on an individual basis.  The action is stayed
pending the resolution of the arbitration and will be
administratively closed.  The parties are ordered to file a joint
status report every 90 days as to the status of the arbitration
proceedings until such proceedings have been completed.  They are
ordered to notify the Court within 30 days from the date that the
arbitration has been completed so that the action may be terminated
when appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9g9vbko from Leagle.com.


JUUL LABS: Brownsville Area School District Joins Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPXI.com report that the Brownsville Area School District has
joined a class-action lawsuit against the electronic cigarette
maker Juul.

The lawsuit alleges the company targets school-aged children and
has dramatically increased the use of e-cigarettes among
Brownsville students.

Pittsburgh Public Schools, North Hills, McKeesport, and Butler are
also part of the lawsuit.

Juul has said they're working with communities to combat underage
use. [GN]



K12 INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against K12, Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, and docketed under 20-cv-01528, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities
between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased K12 securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 18, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

K12 is a technology-based education company that provides
proprietary and third-party educational curriculum, teacher
training, administrative support, information technology support,
software systems, and educational services. The Company operates
virtual learning systems worldwide. As a provider of online content
and educational services, K12's success and financial and
operational well-being are critically dependent on its technical
capability and ability to provide and maintain well-functioning and
operational information technology systems and infrastructures.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.

Beginning in March 2020, the global pandemic has forced school
districts across the country to close in-class instruction and
shift all learning activities to online and blended instruction.
K12, which had a history of reporting disappointing financial
results during the 10-month period prior to the school closures,
saw a unique opportunity to revamp itself by seizing a large stake
in the rapidly growing market for online education. Accordingly,
almost immediately following the nationwide closure of in-class
instruction, K12 embarked on an intensive campaign to convince the
market that it was well-positioned and technologically capable to
accommodate and service the massive surge of students, parents, and
teachers who were turning to online education. To do that,
Defendants disseminated dozens of false and misleading statements
in which they touted the technological wherewithal of the Company's
online learning platforms, cybersecurity protocols, preparedness
for large volumes of students, as well as the administrative
support and training that K12 would provide to students, parents,
and teachers.

K-12's self-promoting campaign worked well. In reliance on K12's
false and misleading statements, the investing community expected
K12 to experience a great boost in its financials and successfully
capitalize on the opportunities presented to it by the global
pandemic. For example, on July 15, 2020, when K12 common shares
traded at around $43 per share, Citron Research published a $100
price target for K12. Citron Research's prediction was based on its
belief that K12 was "best positioned to take advantage of [the]
megatrend [of shifting to full online education]." Similarly,
securities analysts gradually increased K12's rating, based on the
Company's executives' commentary regarding present enrollment
trends. As a result of K12's self-promoting campaign, the price of
K12 shares skyrocketed to its all-time high closing price of $51.60
per share on August 5, 2020, a surge that was unmatched by any of
K12's competitors.

In reality, however, and unbeknownst to the investing public, K12
was not ready to take on the increased load and lacked the
technological capabilities to support and service the massive
increase in traffic on its website and its learning platforms.
Indeed, K12 lacked adequate infrastructures to enable thousands of
students and teachers to logon to their systems and utilize the
audio and video features necessary for remote instruction.
Additionally, despite K12's representations to the contrary, its
cybersecurity measures and protocols were so weak that a
16-year-old high school junior successfully breached the network on
which K12 was critically dependent, and thereby crippled K12's
online platform, and the provision of its services for hundreds of
thousands of students for several days. The issues relating to the
functionality and support of K12's platforms were only compounded
by the lack of training and instruction provided to teachers and
parents, who received little support and insufficient hands-on
experience and training prior to the platform's launch.

Contrary to the facts asserted by K12, reports began to surface
that K12's training for teachers in Miami-Dade County, one of the
nation's largest school districts, had been woefully inadequate.
For example, on August 26, 2020, teachers in Miami-Dade County
School District reported that the training provided by K12 was
ineffective and "unacceptable" as they lacked the instruction
necessary to utilize K12's platform.

On this news, the price of K12 common shares sharply fell by 7%
over the course of two trading days, to close at $37.70 per share
on August 27, 2020, on unusually high volume.

Once classes began on August 31, 2020, the situation worsened. K12
experienced major technical issues and disruptions with teachers
and students of Miami-Dade County being unable to even log into the
platform and utilize its contents, which prompted local officials
to publicly scold K12 for being "not ready" for the opening of the
school year. By the third day of classes, September 2, 2020,
Miami-Dade County students and teachers reported numerous
additional technical issues and a total of twelve intermittent
cyberattacks that led to K12's learning platform effectively being
dysfunctional. In response to the overwhelming amount of complaints
by outraged parents, Miami-Dade County School District called a
Board meeting to discuss K12's many failures. During the meeting,
Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho
revealed that he never signed the $15.3 million no-bid contract
with K12 and the school district had never paid K12 for the
provision of its services and products.

On this news, the price of K12 common shares fell 10.5% over the
course of two trading days, to close at $34.89 per share on
September 3, 2020.

A week later, after another Board meeting that lasted for over 13
hours and included 400 speakers, the Miami-Dade County Public
Schools Board voted to terminate their $15.3 million contract with
K12 on September 10, 2020.

On this news, the price of K12 common shares again fell
drastically, by 11.5%, to close at $30.55 per share on September
10, 2020, on unusually high trading volume.

Meanwhile, the Beaufort County School District in South Carolina
engaged K12 to provide virtual learning programs for their
students. However, the introduction of the program had to be
delayed until the second week of instruction. Soon after, Beaufort
County School District board member John Dowling stated that he had
lost confidence in K12's ability to provide educational solutions
for the district and moved to terminate the contract, which
happened two days later.

On this news, the price of K12 common shares fell 4.9%, to close at
$27.21 per share on September 18, 2020, on unusually high trading
volume.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


K12 INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of January 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 28 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/k12inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11812&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
Class Period: April 27, 2020 - September 18, 2020

Allegations against LRN include that: (i) K12 lacked the
technological capabilities, infrastructures, and expertise to
support the increased demand for virtual and blended education
necessitated by the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked adequate
cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of
its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable provide the necessary
levels of administrative support and training to teachers,
students, and parents; and (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a
reasonable basis and omitted facts.

Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ:YY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11812&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
Class Period: April 28, 2016 - November 18, 2020

Allegations against YY include that: (1) JOYY dramatically
overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) The
majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company
utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that
Manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
Misleading at all relevant times.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=11812&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020

Allegations against NAK include that: (1) the Company's Pebble
Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the
public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project
would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public;
(3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble
Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


KAISER FOUNDATION: Summary Judgment in I.M. ERISA Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, I.M., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-16374 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan and denying reconsideration.

The putative class action case arises out of a health insurance
dispute between I.M. and KFHP.  I.M. alleges that KFHP breached its
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by excluding residential treatment programs
from its plan and by failing to provide adequate procedures that
would enable providers to refer eating disorder patients to
residential treatment programs.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of KFHP and
denied reconsideration.  On appeal, I.M. contends that the district
court overlooked numerous factual disputes concerning whether KFHP
breached its fiduciary duties concerning medically necessary
residential treatment.  I.M. further contends that there is no
support in the record that I.M. turned down help in getting
residential treatment and instead opted for private-pay
out-of-network residential treatment.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the latter proposition is plainly
incorrect.  There is no evidence that KFHP's procedures (or lack
thereof) inhibited I.M. from obtaining residential treatment.  It
was I.M. who either refused to consider residential treatment or
would only consider out-of-network programs when the option was
raised.  Ultimately, the record belies any argument that KFHP
erected barriers to residential treatment and, in fact, KFHP left
treatment decisions in the exclusive control of I.M.'s providers.

According to the Ninth Circuit, I.M.'s argument concerning his
doctor's confusion about an alleged "fail first" policy also fails
to establish a breach of fiduciary duty.  The confusion arose out
of a communication between Dr. Hazlett, I.M.'s psychiatrist, and
Dr. Wang, a doctor at a psychiatry call center.  Dr. Wang informed
Dr. Hazlett that in order for I.M. to be hospitalized, he must
first fail an eating disorder intensive outpatient program
evaluation.  Not only was the communication about hospitalization
but there is no evidence that such a policy was ever applied to
I.M.  Mere confusion about how to obtain hospitalization in one
instance is not adequate grounds for finding a breach of fiduciary
duty under ERISA concerning residential treatment.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit holds that it is important to note that
administrators like KFHP cannot be held vicariously liable for its
providers' medical judgments.  Although the issue does not apply to
I.M.'s allegations regarding KFHP's policies and procedures, I.M.
appears to try and graft his dissatisfaction with his doctors'
course of treatment onto KFHP.  His doctors are not KFHP employees,
but instead are employed by an affiliated company, the Permanente
Medical Group.  Therefore, I.M. may not attribute the alleged
deficiencies of his doctors to KFHP.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did
not err in granting summary judgment in favor of KFHP.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7kl34je from Leagle.com.


KILGORE ISD: Denial of Plea to Jurisdiction in Anderson Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals of Texas for the Twelfth District, Tyler,
affirmed the trial court's order denying Kilgore's plea to the
jurisdiction in the case, KILGORE ISD, APPELLANT v. SHEILA
ANDERSON, ET AL, APPELLEES, Case No. 12-20-00133-CV (Tex. App.).
On June 15, 2015, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill No. 1
("SB-1"), a bill to provide property tax relief and comprehensive
school funding, which (1) was to become effective on the later
passage of an enabling constitutional amendment by the voters, (2)
increased a statewide homestead exemption, and (3) forbade any
local taxing authority with a local option homestead exemption
("LOHE") in place in 2014 from repealing that LOHE before the end
of calendar year 2019.  The Legislature also passed a joint
resolution, SJR-1, proposing an amendment to the Texas Constitution
and granting it authority to prohibit the governing body of a
political subdivision that adopts a LOHE from reducing the amount
of or repealing the exemption.

The Legislature passed both SB-1 and SJR-1 on the same day.  The
Legislature conditioned SB-1's effectiveness on the voter's
approval of SJR-1, but it also stated that, in the event SJR-1 was
approved, SB-1 would become effective on the date that SJR-1's
proposed constitutional amendments took effect.  SJR-1 stated that
the proposed amendments take effect for the tax year beginning Jan.
1, 2015.

On June 29, 14 days after Gov. Abbott signed SB1, the Board of
Trustees of KISD voted to repeal KISD's LOHE.  After SJR-1 was
approved, the Texas Attorney General and the Texas Education
Commissioner made written demand on the District to restore the
LOHE.  The District refused.

Individual taxpayers Darlene Axberg, John Claude Axberg, and Sheila
Anderson (the original Plaintiffs) sued KISD, seven individual
members of KISD's Board of Trustees in their official capacities,
and the school superintendent, Cara Cooke, in her official
capacity, alleging that KISD's repeal of the LOHE was invalid
because it violated state law, that taxes subject to the LOHE had
been illegally collected, and that Cooke and each of the Trustees
committed various ultra vires actions.  Their petition sought a
declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, a tax refund,
attorney's fees, and costs.

The Texas Attorney General filed a petition in intervention
requesting similar declaratory relief and requesting the trial
court issue a writ of mandamus directing KISD to comply with SB-1
and SJR-1.  KISD, Cooke, and the Trustees filed a plea to the
jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, both of which the trial court
denied.

KISD, Cooke, and the Trustees appealed the trial court's order.
The Texarkana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order in
part, to the extent it refused to dismiss the ultra vires claims,
and rendered judgment dismissing those claims; but otherwise
affirmed the trial court's actions and remanded the remaining
claims to the trial court.

Thereafter, the taxpayers and the State moved for summary judgment
and KISD filed an opposing motion for summary judgment.  The trial
court granted the taxpayers' motion and the State's motion and
denied KISD's motion.  It granted declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, mandamus relief, and restitution of the additional taxes
paid by the individual Plaintiffs.

KISD again appealed, and the Texarkana Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the taxpayers
but affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to
the State.  The Texarkana Court reasoned that summary judgment was
improper for the taxpayers because they failed to present competent
summary judgment evidence establishing that they lived in the
school district, paid taxes, and were assessed and paid taxes that
did not include the LOHE.  It held that the trial court correctly
granted summary judgment in favor of the State because SB-1 and
SJR-1 were intended to prohibit KISD's repeal of its LOHE and
rendered KISD's repeal of no effect.

Thereafter, the taxpayers amended their petition to list new
Plaintiffs and seek class certification.  They included KISD board
members as Defendants.  KISD filed a plea to the jurisdiction.  The
trial court granted KISD's plea to the jurisdiction with respect to
the claims against the individual board members but denied the plea
to the jurisdiction with respect to the taxpayers' claims against
KISD.  The appeal followed.

For three reasons, KISD argues that the trial court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction in the case because (1) KISD definitely did not
adopt an LOHE for the 2014 tax year and the plain language of SB-1
does not apply to prohibit KISD from repealing its LOHE; (2) the
taxpayers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and (3)
the taxpayers' claims for injunctive relief are moot.

The Court of Appeals overrules KISD's first issue.  It opines that
the plain language of the Act evidences the Legislative intent to
set a floor for the local option exemption rates at the level they
were in 2014 until the end of the 2019 tax year.  Its conclusion is
consistent with the plain language and context of SB-1's words, as
well as the overall purpose of SB-1, which was to provide property
tax relief.

Moreover, to interpret SB-1 to limit its prohibition against a
repeal or reduction of an LOHE that was voted on in tax year 2014
would subvert the Legislature's intent and lead to absurd results.
The Court sees no reason why the Legislature, in attempting to
provide property tax relief, would prohibit a school district that
voted to accept an LOHE in 2014 from repealing or reducing its
LOHE, but allow a school district that voted to accept an LOHE in
the 1980s and continued to adopt the LOHE through the 2014 tax year
to repeal or reduce its LOHE.

The Court of Appeals also overrules KISD's second issue.  A review
of the record reveals that the only difference between the
taxpayers' pleadings at issue before the Texarkana Court and their
pleadings before the Court is class certification.  Further, the
discovery propounded to KISD seeks information that would assist in
identifying potential claimants and amounts of reimbursement.  The
premise of the Texarkana Court's holding, whether SB-1 precluded
KISD from repealing its LOHE in 2015, remains unchanged by the
taxpayers' subsequent amendment to seek class certification and
their propounding discovery to that end.  Whether SB-1 precluded
KISD from repealing its LOHE in 2015 remains purely a question of
law despite amendments to the taxpayers' pleadings and discovery
requests.

Finally, the Appellate Court overrules KISD's third issue.  It is
not persuaded by KISD's argument that the passage of time has
rendered the taxpayers' request for injunctive relief moot.
Certainly, the passage of time has not resulted in the return of
illegally collected taxes to the taxpayers.  The taxpayers seek an
order requiring KISD to reinstate the LOHE for the 2015 through
2019 tax years and stop assessing and collecting any property taxes
that are subject to the exemption.  The injunction sought would
have a practical legal effect by requiring KISD to recalculate each
taxpayer's tax burden based on the taxpayer's property value,
excluding the percentage which would have been exempted but for
KISD's actions, and ordering KISD to stop the collection of
illegally assessed taxes for the 2014-2019 tax years.

Having overruled KISD's first, second, and third issues, Judge
Brian Hoyle, writing for the Court of Appeals, affirmed the trial
court's judgment.  It is the opinion of the Court that there was no
error in the judgment.  All costs of the appeal be, and the same
are, adjudged against the Appellant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydcglvtu from Leagle.com.


KING'S HAWAIIAN: Faces Galinsky Suit Over Mislabeled Hawaiian Rolls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GALINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KING'S HAWAIIAN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-10931 (S.D.N.Y., December 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business
Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's false and misleading
advertising and labeling of Hawaiian Rolls. The product's front
label statement "HILO, HAWAII" causes consumers to believe the
product is made in Hawaii. While the Defendant's company was
founded in Hilo, Hawaii, the product is not made there, but in
California. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for
them.

King's Hawaiian LLC is a manufacturer of baked products, with a
principal place of business in Torrance, California. [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

                 - and –
               
         Michael R. Reese, Esq.
         REESE LLP
         100 W 93rd St. Fl. 16
         New York NY 10025-7524
         Telephone: (212) 643-0500
         Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
         E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

KML CORP: Bulmer Files Suit in California
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KML Corp. The case is
styled as Richard Bulmer, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KML Corp., a Washington
corporation, Defendant, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010575 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 2020).

The type of the case is stated as Unlimited Civil Other
Employment.

KML Corporation manufactures and supplies a variety of building
panels to firms throughout the West. Its products include thermally
fused melamine, polyester and high-pressure laminated panels, slot
walls, edge bandings, and parts of doors, drawers and
shelving.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kane Moon, Esq.
   Moon & Yang, APC, 1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
   Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
   Tel: (213) 232-3128
   Fax: (213) 232-3125
   Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

KODIAK CAKES: Deadline to File Class Cert. Continued to June 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY STEWART, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order that:

   --  the deadline to serve all interrogatories, requests for
       admission, and document production requests necessary for
       the class certification motion is continued by
       approximately 4 months to April 30, 2021; and

   --  the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
       certification is continued by approximately 4 months to
       June 28, 2021.

The Court cautions the Parties that this extension is significant,
and the Court is not inclined to grant further continuances without
a substantial showing of diligence and extraordinary circumstances
interfering with the Parties' ability to complete discovery and
file any class certification motions within the time now provided.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB at no extra charge.[CC]

KRAFT HEINZ: Class Cert. Bid in Mawby Suit Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mawby v. Kraft Heinz Foods
Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00827 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen
R. Bough entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification as a result of the Court staying all
proceedings in the case.

The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Injury - Product
Liability.

Kraft Heinz operates as a food and beverage company. The Company
offers sauces, meals, soups, snacks, and infant nutrition
products.[CC]

KRAFT HEINZ: Consumers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Cheese Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
federal appellate court has sided with consumers in a false
advertising suit against several major makers of grated Parmesan
cheese, sending the companies back to court nearly five years after
a news story sparked a wave of litigation when it revealed people
might be sprinkling wood pulp onto their pasta.

A two-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, in Chicago, on Dec. 7 reversed the ruling of a district
court judge who had dismissed the false advertising claims against
Kraft Heinz, Wal-Mart, Jewel-Osco owner Albertsons, SuperValu and
manufacturer ICCO-Cheese.

At issue is the labeling of canisters of grated Parmesan cheese
that also contain cellulose to prevent caking or potassium sorbate
to prevent mold. Some of those canisters advertise "100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese" on the front packaging while listing the added
ingredients on the back.

Dozens of lawsuits were filed in 2016 alleging that labeling those
products as "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" violated state consumer
protection laws, after a Bloomberg story that year revealed that
some brands contained upward of 8% cellulose, a food additive made
of wood fiber.

The cases were consolidated in Chicago federal court before U.S.
District Judge Gary Feinerman. Feinerman dismissed claims that the
"100%" labeling was deceptive because reasonable consumers could
find the additional ingredients listed on the back. He also said
it's common sense that Parmesan cheese can't sit unrefrigerated in
the middle of the store without added preservatives.

The appellate judges disagreed, saying grocery store shoppers
shouldn't be expected to read the fine print on every item.

"Many reasonable consumers do not instinctively parse every front
label or read every back label before placing groceries in their
carts," Judge David Hamilton wrote in the opinion.

Hamilton also said it was reasonable for consumers to believe
Parmesan cheese can be shelf-stable, citing U.S. Department of
Agriculture guidelines that a block of hard cheese, like Parmesan,
can sit unrefrigerated for six months and one month in shredded
form.

The case now returns to Feinerman's court, where the false
advertising claims will proceed with regard to the "100%" labeling
as well as claims that companies used more cellulose than needed
for anti-caking purposes and therefore used it as a filler.

The Seventh Circuit's ruling is notable because it "reaffirmed what
the reasonable consumer standard is" and said what's most important
is what consumers take away from the advertising, said Timothy
Blood, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The case against Publix and Target remains dismissed because the
appeal was filed too late. [GN]


LABORATORY CORPORATION: DeYoung Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al. The case is styled as Donald W.
DeYoung, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Laboratory Corporation of America, LCA
Collections, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Case No.
1:20-cv-01253 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Laboratory Corporation of America (Labcorp) --
https://www.labcorp.com/ -- provides information to help doctors,
hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and patients make
clear and confident decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com


LABRADOR FRANCHISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LABRADOR FRANCHISES, INC. d/b/a PET DEPOT, a California
corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-at-01268
(E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

Because Defendant's Website, https://petdepot.net/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
resulting in violation of the laws, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices,
and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Labrador Franchises, Inc. d/b/a Pet Depot is a franchise company
specializing in pet stores and veterinary clinics throughout the
United States and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEIDOS INC: Waters Suit Alleges Racially Motivated Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA PATRICE WATERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEIDOS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07733 (N.D. Ill., December 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by terminating her employment as a result of retaliation,
along with racial harassment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a department
supervisor from August 15, 2016 until her termination on August 23,
2019.

Leidos, Inc. is an American defense, aviation, information
technology, and biomedical research company, headquartered in
Reston, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                                                                   

         Robert A. Holstein, Esq.
         HOLSTEIN & MUTH, LLC
         130 N. Garland Court, Suite 1906
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 906-8000
         E-mail: Holsteintobert3@gmail.com

LENDLEASE: Faces Suit Over Poor Housing Conditions on Camp Lejeune
------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Shomaker, writing for The Daily News, reports that in
September a team of four law firms filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina suing eight limited liability companies involved in owning
and managing privatized base housing on Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune.

Lendlease, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities (AMCC) and Winn
Management Group are among the companies involved in the lawsuit
filed on behalf of three Marine families, all of which have young
children and claim to have been adversely affected by housing
conditions on base.

The lawsuit alleges that military families at Camp Lejeune have
been leased housing units with unacceptable living conditions
dating as far back as 2016. Issues raised in the complaint include
water-filled electrical sockets, black mold, pest infestation,
filth and failed air conditioning units.

Additionally, lack of effective customer service, repair and
maintenance from property managers were also addressed in the
filing.

One Marine spouse tending to her newborn alleged that property
manager AMCC failed to fix her home's air conditioning, despite
80-degree temperatures in the home, which also had water leaks and
mold.

Another mother and Marine spouse claimed she paid out-of-pocket for
a mold inspector and blamed negligence on the part of the property
managers.

The 70-page class action complaint seeks damages and non-monetary
housing reform for the suing families and other members of the
class.

Subject to court approval, the lawsuit could bring relief to
"servicemember tenants based at MCB Camp Lejeune who have entered
into lease agreements with Atlantic Marine Corps Communities LLC
for residential housing units from September 18, 2016 to present,
and all authorized adult family member spouses or other occupants,"
according to the complaint.  

"If the court certifies it as class action, then our families will
be representing all the other persons in that class," said lead
attorney Joel Rhine of Rhine Law Firm in Wilmington, NC.

A three-year subclass outlined in the filing includes AMCC tenants
at Camp Lejeune who entered lease agreements from Sept. 18, 2017 to
Sept. 2020.

The filing attorneys also requested court certification for an
injunctive relief subclass that would represent all residential
housing tenants on Camp Lejeune "who currently have ongoing lease
agreements" with AMCC. If the injunctive relief subclass is
certified, the court could require certain business commitments
from the landlords in order to prevent the alleged infractions from
reoccurring, Rhine said.

One of six claims for relief listed in the complaint is a breach of
the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (RRAA) that
requires landlords "make all repairs and do whatever necessary to
put and keep the tenants' premises in a fit and habitable
condition."

The complaint claims that as a result of the defendants' breach of
the RRAA, "Plaintiffs and class members were injured and are
entitled to damages and declaratory, injunctive or equitable
relief."

Alleged damages include out-of-pocket costs, "labor value" spent
attempting self-repair and rent payments "exceeding the reasonable
rental value" in addition to noted health deterioration due to mold
exposure.

There are also alleged violations of the North Carolina Unfair &
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, citing units were leased "that had
defects and deficiencies far in excess of what was acceptable and
reasonable," among other claims, such as false and misleading
tenant surveys and maintenance data.

Since Oct. 2007, all homes on Camp Lejeune have been privatized,
freeing the base and the Marine Corps from the lawsuit. Lincoln
Military Housing, which operates the Heroes Manor community on
base, is not a part of the lawsuit, either.

According to the complaint, the Navy and Marine Corps selected
Lendlease to privatize housing on Camp Lejeune in 2005. The
defendants own and manage over 4,000 housing units on Camp Lejeune
under a 50-year lease with the Navy. It also states that "the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000."

Assisting Rhine with the case are Wise Law Firm of Fairfax, VA,
Morgan & Morgan Law Firm of Tampa, FL and Wallace and Graham of
Salisbury, NC.

At the time of the complaint, there were at least eight lawsuits
ongoing in courts around the country filed by residents of military
family housing, according to Rose L. Thayer of Stars and Stripes.

Rhine urges any witnesses who may have information pertaining to
the lawsuit to contact one of the attorneys' offices. [GN]


LEVI STRAUSS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Brooks Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-at-01270 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 17, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because Defendant's Website, https://petdepot.net/, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
resulting in violation of the laws, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices and
procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Levi Strauss & Co. is an American clothing company known worldwide
for its Levi's brand of denim jeans. It was founded in May 1853
when German immigrant Levi Strauss moved from Buttenheim, Bavaria,
to San Francisco, California to open a west coast branch of his
brothers' New York dry goods business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIFECORE FITNESS: Jaquez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Lifecore Fitness, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lifecore Fitness, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10634 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

LifeCORE provides fitness equipment for in-home use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Vasaturo Sues Over Defective Ceiling Fans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Vasaturo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10901
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for the
manufacture and sale of Harbor Breeze Kingsbury Ceiling Fans, all
of which suffered from an identical defect in design and is also
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Product for violation of New
York General Business Law, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied warranty and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Specifically, the heavy light globe has a tendency to fall from its
housing, posing an impact and laceration injury hazard. A ceiling
fan that poses such a hazard is extraordinarily dangerous
considering the weight of the light globe and the fact that it is
made of glass prone to shatter. This defect rendered the Product
unsuitable for its principal and intended purpose. Further, had the
Plaintiff been aware of this serious defect, he would not have
purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less for
it.

Among the various items sold by the Defendant is the Harbor Breeze
Kingsbury Ceiling Fan, which is the product at issue here. The
Product is sold exclusively by the Defendant. The Product was made
with a defective light globe, causing the light globe to often fall
out of its housing, posing an impact and laceration hazard. The
Product Defect was substantially likely to materialize during the
useful life of the Product. With 280,000 units sold at
approximately $230 each, Lowe's profited enormously from its
failure to disclose the Product Defect sooner. The Light Globe
Defect at issue here involves a critical safety-related component
of the Product, and it was unsafe to operate the Product with the
defective light globe. The Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the
defect, which was not known to the Plaintiff or class members. The
Defendant made partial representations to the Plaintiff and class
members, while suppressing the safety defect, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Mr. Vasaturo purchased two Harbor Breeze Kingsbury
Ceiling Fans from a Lowe's store located in New York.

The Defendant Lowe's is a retail store franchise that owns and
operates over 2200 home improvement stores nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jsmith@bursor.co


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.

On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for
control person liability) arising in large part from allegations
that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection
with reinsurance provided to AmTrust.

Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings'
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Maiden said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed
against the Company, its subsidiaries and its respective officers
due to the diminution in value of our securities as a result of our
operating results and financial condition. It is currently
uncertain as to the effect of such litigation on our business,
operating results and financial condition."

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

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States, Europe, and select other global
markets. The company operates internationally providing branded
auto and credit life insurance products through insurer partners to
retail clients in the EU and other global markets through Maiden
Global Holdings, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. The company is based in
Pembroke, Bermuda.

MAPLEBEAR INC: Wins Bid to Compel Individual Arbitration in O'Shea
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted Maplebear Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit styled KATHERINE O'SHEA, BRIAN POSNER, AND TOM BACON, on
behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown v. MAPLEBEAR INC. D/B/A INSTACART AND "DOES" 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 19 C 06994 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs O'Shea, Posner, and Bacon bring the action on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated persons working as personal
shoppers, drivers, and delivery persons for Instacart in Illinois.
The Plaintiffs assert a number of federal and state law claims
against Defendant Maplebear, doing business as Instacart, including
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Cook
County Minimum Wage Ordinance, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance,
the Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and common law
claims for tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage, conversion, and fraud and intentional
misrepresentation.

Instacart has moved to compel individual arbitration of the
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, 4, and to stay these proceedings pending
resolution of those individual arbitrations.

Instacart is a California-based technology company that connects
customers and Shoppers via the Instacart website and its smartphone
application to facilitate same-day, on-demand grocery shopping and
delivery services in major metropolitan areas, including within the
State of Illinois. To become an Instacart Shopper, applicants must
review and sign the Independent Contractor Agreement, which governs
the relationship between Instacart and its Shoppers. Shopper
paperwork is done through a third-party product, HelloWorks.

The Plaintiffs' operative Agreements differ slightly; each,
however, includes an agreement to arbitrate a broad range of claims
arising out of the Shopper's relationship with Instacart and use of
its various platforms. The operative Agreements also include
waivers of both class action and representative action claims. The
parties have agreed that the Independent Contractor Agreement is to
be governed by the FAA.

Instacart argues that all three prerequisites for the Court to
grant its motion to compel are satisfied. It contends that there is
a written arbitration agreement between it and the
Plaintiff-Shoppers. Instacart also contends that the Plaintiffs'
claims fall within the scope of that arbitration agreement. It
alleges that the Plaintiffs have declined to participate in
arbitration proceedings.

The Plaintiffs argue, however, that the FAA's mandate to courts to
enforce arbitration agreements, 9 U.S.C. Section 2, does not apply
here because the Plaintiff-Shoppers fall within the statute's
exemption for "seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."

District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., notes that each of the
Plaintiffs' operative Agreements includes provisions in which the
Shopper agrees to pursue any claims against Instacart only in their
individual capacities, rather than as part of a class action or
other representative matter. As such, the Plaintiffs must submit
their claims for individual arbitration.

For these reasons, Defendant Instacart's motion to compel
individual arbitration is granted. The case is stayed pending
notification from the parties that arbitration proceedings have
terminated or the Court otherwise requires a report as to the
status of those proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7swgfwm from
Leagle.com.


MARINEPOLIS USA: Coffey Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVER COFFEY v.
MITSUYOSHI INOHARA and ICHIRO MACHIDA, individuals, and MARINEPOLIS
U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00643-JR (D.
Oreg.), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order granting:

   -- the parties' Joint Motion for Final Court Approval of
      Class and Collective Settlement;

   -- Class counsel's Motion for award of attorney fees and
      costs; and

   -- the plaintiff's motion for approval of service payment.

On September 14, 2020, the Court granted preliminary collective
certification under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and preliminary class certification under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 16, 2020,
the plaintiff's counsel mailed the Notices in the form approved by
the Court to all identified class/collective members via
first-class U.S. Mail to last known addresses listed in defendants'
records. No class members opted out. Seventeen non-named plaintiffs
submitted claims/opted in (the named plaintiff is deemed to have
opted in and submitted a claim under the terms of the settlement
agreement).

Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed in support
of final approval of the Settlement, including supporting
declarations; Class Counsel's fee application; the Settlement
Agreement; and the pleadings, the Court confirms the findings and
conclusions previously presented in the September 14, 2020 order
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement.

According to Judge Russo, "In addition to those already stated in
connection with preliminary approval, one additional Linney factor
supports final approval -- the reaction of the class members to the
proposed settlement. The court-approved notices informed the class
members of their right to object in writing or at the final
approval hearing to the settlement, the fee application, the
service award, or any combination thereof . . . No objections to
the settlement, class counsel's fees, or the service award have
been filed with the Court, and Class Counsel has confirmed on the
record that he has received no such objections."  

The Plaintiff Coffey brings this action on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other
federal and state laws.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nY3y5Q at no extra charge.[CC]

MARINEPOLIS USA: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in Coffey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon issued an Order and Judgment finally approving a
class settlement in the lawsuit titled OLIVER COFFEY v. MITSUYOSHI
INOHARA and ICHIRO MACHIDA, individuals, and MARINEPOLIS U.S.A.,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00643-JR (D. Or.).

The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for
Final Court Approval of Class and Collective Settlement, and Class
Counsel's Motion for Award of attorney fees and costs and
Plaintiff's motion for approval of service payment.

The Court approves the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and grants the class counsel's Motion for award of
attorney fees and costs and the Plaintiff's motion for approval of
service payment, in the amounts and allocations and payment
structure stated in the Settlement Agreement. The Court enters the
Class Action Settlement Order and Final Judgment.

Plaintiff Coffey brings the action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals against Defendants Inohara, Machida,
and Marinepolis, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and other federal and state laws.

On Sept. 14, 2020, the Court granted preliminary collective
certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the FLSA and
preliminary class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel
mailed the Notices in the form approved by the Court to all
identified class/collective members. No class members opted out.
Seventeen non-named Plaintiffs submitted claims/opted in (the named
Plaintiff is deemed to have opted in and submitted a claim under
the terms of the settlement agreement).

Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed in support
of final approval of the Settlement, including supporting
declarations; the Class Counsel's fee application; the Settlement
Agreement; and the pleadings, the Court confirms the findings and
conclusions previously presented in the Sept. 14, 2020 order
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to those already stated in connection with preliminary
approval, one additional Linney factor supports final approval --
the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. The
court-approved notices informed the class members of their right to
object in writing or at the final approval hearing to the
settlement, the fee application, the service award, or any
combination thereof. No objections to the settlement, the class
counsel's fees, or the service award have been filed with the
Court, and the Class Counsel has confirmed on the record that he
has received no such objections.

The Court, therefore, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final
Court Approval of Class and Collective Settlement, and class
counsel's Motion for award of attorney fees and costs and the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of service payment, and entered the
Final Judgment on the terms provided in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Judgment dated Dec. 24,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaybz9zy from
Leagle.com.


MCKESSON CORP: Class Decertification Bid Tossed in True Health Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC
INC, et al., v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for class
decertification and deferring ruling on the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment. The Court directed the parties to submit
their separate statements by January 19, 2021.

The Court said, "Consistent with the Ninth Circuit's approach in
Fober and Van Patten, the Court acknowledges (as it must under
controlling precedent) that Amerifactors is authoritative and
establishes that those who received faxes via an online fax service
have different legal rights than those who received faxes via a
traditional physical fax machine. Accordingly, in modifying the
class definition, the Court simply adheres to the FCC's
interpretation and enables a process for identifying those who
received faxes via an online fax service. So rather than posing a
threshold "jurisdictional" issue as Defendants assert, the question
of whether the Online Fax Service subclass has a claim under the
TCPA is simply a common merits question whose answer will be the
same for all members of that subclass. The Defendants further argue
that Plaintiffs' "failure to fully describe a common proof
methodology and to show class-wide liability defeats predominance."
But the Court is satisfied with the Plaintiffs' proposed three-step
subpoena process to distinguish members of these subclasses based
on the Plaintiffs' counsel's experience in another TCPA case.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to decertify
the class."

The Plaintiff True Health filed this putative class action on May
15, 2013, alleging that the Defendant McKesson sent "unsolicited
advertisements" by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 20, 2013, and
a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on July 18, 2014, which added
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. ("McLaughlin") as a
Plaintiff and McKesson Technologies, Inc. ("MTI") as a Defendant.
The operative complaint similarly alleges that Defendants violated
the TCPA by sending "unsolicited advertisements" by fax.

A copy of the Court's order denying motion to decertify class dated
Dec. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mReeSo at no extra charge.[CC]

MCKESSON CORP: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in True Health Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denies the Defendants' motion to decertify class and defers ruling
on the cross-motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC., et al. v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et
al., Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff True Health filed the putative class action on May 15,
2013, alleging that Defendant McKesson sent "unsolicited
advertisements" by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on June 20, 2013, and a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
on July 18, 2014, which added McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates,
Inc. as a Plaintiff and McKesson Technologies, Inc. ("MTI") as a
Defendant.

The operative complaint similarly alleges that the Defendants
violated the TCPA by sending "unsolicited advertisements" by fax.
The Plaintiffs contend that they neither invited nor gave
permission to the Defendants to send the faxes but that even
assuming the faxes were sent pursuant to a recipient's express
permission or an "established business relationship," the required
"opt-out notice" was absent.

During heavily contested discovery, the Defendants were ordered to
identify each type of act that the Defendants believe demonstrates
a recipient's express permission to receive faxes (e.g. completing
a software registration), explain how that act qualifies as express
permission, and identify each recipient allegedly giving that type
of permission by name and contact information (including, at a
minimum, fax and phone number). In response, the Defendants
identified three groups of consent defenses that it argued relieved
it of TCPA liability and produced three exhibits -- Exhibits A, B,
and C -- corresponding to the consent-defense groups.

Fax recipients identified in Exhibit A purportedly gave consent by
(1) providing fax numbers when registering a product purchased from
a subdivision of McKesson; and (2) entering into software-licensing
agreements, or End User License Agreements ("EULA").

The Plaintiffs later moved to certify a single class of all
putative class members. The Court denied certification on the basis
that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement. Because the Court denied certification for failure to
satisfy predominance, its order did not address other requirements
for class certification. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in
part, reversed in part, and remanded.

On Aug. 31, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, finding that the Defendants failed to carry their
burden to show the Plaintiffs gave prior express invitation or
permission for faxed advertisements through either the provision of
their fax numbers in the Medisoft product registration form or
agreeing to the EULA. It additionally granted the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification, finding that the Exhibit
A-only Class satisfied Rule 23(a)'s and Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirements.

In their Motion, the Defendants argue that class decertification is
warranted due to two developments that purportedly defeat
predominance and superiority. First, the Defendants argue that the
new consumer survey conducted by Dr. Steven Nowlis shows
significant variability in consumers' interpretation of the EULA,
such that individualized analysis will be required to determine
whether each class member understood the EULA to constitute
consent.

The Court readily rejects the argument in light of the Ninth
Circuit's determination that consent as to both the EULA and the
product registration form can be determined by "simply examining"
the documents themselves. It also ruled on the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment based on the EULA defense and found that the
EULA does not, as a matter of law, constitute prior express
permission to send the faxes at issue. The Defendants contend that
"the issue of ambiguity in construing the EULA had not arisen"
prior to the Court's ruling but its efforts to present such factual
survey data are flatly inconsistent with both the Ninth Circuit's
holding and the Court's denial of summary judgment.

Second, the Defendants contend that a recent decision by the
Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau of the Federal
Communications Commission will necessitate individualized inquiries
to determine whether the class members received the advertisements
through online fax services or traditional analog fax machines,
citing In the Matter of Amerifactors Fin. Grp., LLC Petition for
Expedited Declaratory Ruling Rules & Regulations Implementing the
Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991 Junk Fax Prot. Act of 2005.

The Court finds that Amerifactors is a final, binding order for
purposes of the Hobbs Act. The Bureau acted "pursuant to delegated
authority" to issue a declaratory ruling and the ruling became
effective "upon release." Accordingly, in light of Amerifactors,
the Court modifies the class definition to include a Stand-Alone
Fax Machine Class and an Online Fax Services Class:

   * All persons or entities who received faxes from McKesson via
     a stand-alone fax machine from September 2, 2009, to May 11,
     2010, offering Medisoft, Lytec, Practice Partner, or Revenue
     Management Advanced software or BillFlash Patient Statement
     Service, where the faxes do not inform the recipient of the
     right to opt out of future faxes, and whose fax numbers are
     listed in Exhibit A to McKesson's Supplemental Response to
     Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation or
     Permission, but not in Exhibit B or Exhibit C to McKesson's
     Response to Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation
     or Permission; and

   * All persons or entities who received faxes from McKesson via
     an online fax service from September 2, 2009, to May 11,
     2010, offering Medisoft, Lytec, Practice Partner, or Revenue
     Management Advanced software or BillFlash Patient Statement
     Service, where the faxes do not inform the recipient of the
     right to opt out of future faxes, and whose fax numbers are
     listed in Exhibit A to McKesson's Supplemental Response to
     Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation or
     Permission, but not in Exhibit B or Exhibit C to McKesson's
     Response to Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation
     or Permission.

In modifying the class definition, the Court says it simply adheres
to the FCC's interpretation and enables a process for identifying
those who received faxes via an online fax service. So rather than
posing a threshold "jurisdictional" issue as the Defendants assert,
the question of whether the Online Fax Service subclass has a claim
under the TCPA is simply a common merits question whose answer will
be the same for all members of that subclass.

The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiffs' failure to fully
describe a common proof methodology and to show class-wide
liability defeats predominance. But District Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. is satisfied with the Plaintiffs' proposed three-step
subpoena process to distinguish members of these subclasses based
on the Plaintiffs' counsel's experience in another TCPA case.
Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' motion to decertify the
class.

In their motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs argue that
they are entitled to summary judgment as to liability under the
TCPA because (1) the faxes are 'advertisements'; (2) each Defendant
is a 'sender'; (3) the faxes were sent and received using covered
'equipment'; (4) the Defendants' defense of 'prior express
invitation or permission' fails as a matter of law; and (5) the
Defendants' defense of 'established business relationship' fails.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the Court should impose statutory
and treble damages. The Defendants limit their motion for partial
summary judgment to the Plaintiffs' claim for treble damages.

In light of its modification of the class definition, the Court
defers ruling on these motions. Under Amerifactors, it appears that
the Online Fax Service subclass has no cause of action as a matter
of law, and is subject to a grant of summary judgment against it on
that basis.

As reluctant as it is to further drag out the resolution of this
seemingly interminable case, the Court is inclined to provide class
members an updated notice explaining that the class has now been
divided into subclasses with different legal rights. The updated
notice would also provide another opportunity to opt out, which
potentially could be significant for members of the Online Fax
Service subclass. Each party will submit simultaneous statements,
not to exceed two pages, indicating whether the party objects to or
agrees with this proposal.

The parties may not relitigate any of the issues decided: the
limited and simple task is for each party to state its position on
the question of providing supplemental notice of the creation of
subclasses, accepting all of the above issues as decided. The
parties' positions on the underlying substantive questions have
already been exhaustively preserved for the record, and need not be
repeated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 24, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd2czbzq from Leagle.com.


MDL 2862: Bid to Compel to Show Docs in Antitrust Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to All Cases, Master Docket Misc. No. 18-1001, MDL
No. 2862 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Donetta W. Ambrose of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to
Produce Documents and Structured Data.

The multi-district litigation stems from an alleged conspiracy to
reduce supply and increase price for methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate ("MDI") and toluene diisocyanate ("TDI"), precursor
ingredients for the manufacture of polyurethane foam and
thermoplastic polyurethanes.  At the outset, the Judge notes that
the parties to the action have worked cooperatively to keep the MDL
moving forward and she commends them for their ability to resolve
most issues.  Understandably, there are and will be times when the
parties reach an impasse.  This is one of those times.

The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce
Documents and Structured Data along with related documents pursuant
to Rule 37(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The
issues therein relate to the time period for discovery and the
scope of the products the Defendants should include in their search
for and production of documents.

To that end, the Plaintiffs seek an order compelling: 1) the
Defendants to search for and produce documents from Jan. 1, 2014 to
Dec. 31, 2019, 2) the Defendants to search for and produce
documents related to MDI and TDI systems and polyols, and 3)
Domestic Defendants to search for and produce structured data
related to MDI and TDI systems.

The Domestic Defendants, as the only Defendant engaged in merits
discovery at this time, have filed a Memorandum in Opposition
thereto along with related documents.  The Plaintiffs filed a
Reply.

The Plaintiffs argue the relevant and proportional time period for
unstructured document discovery is Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31,
2019.  To that end, they assert that the start date is appropriate
because suspicious supply interruptions and plant shutdowns started
in 2015.

The Domestic Defendants make clear that, after negotiations with
the Plaintiffs, they have agreed to produce structured data from
Jan. 1, 2013 to Dec. 31, 2019.  As to unstructured historical
discovery, however, the Domestic Defendants argue that the relevant
time period should be Jan. 1, 2015 (one year prior to the Class
Period alleged in the Second Amended Complaint) through June 28,
2018 (the date the first underlying complaint was filed).  They
suggest that the more limited three-and-a-half-year time period is
proportional because the SAC alleges a conspiracy beginning in 2016
and does not allege any facts of a conspiracy after 2018.
Moreover, the Defendants assert that expanding discovery beyond
2018 compounds their burden exponentially.

Judge Ambrose finds the relevant and proportional time period for
unstructured discovery is Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2019.
Again, it relates only to unstructured discovery as the Domestic
Defendants have agreed to produce structured data from Jan. 1, 2013
to Dec. 31, 2019.

Next, the Plaintiffs assert that, in responding to their First Set
of Request for Production of Documents and Second Set of Requests
for Production of Documents relating to structured data, the term
"Class Products" should be defined to include polyurethane ("PU")
Systems and that, in responding to the Plaintiffs' First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents, the term "Relevant Products"
for discovery purposes should be defined to include polyols.  The
Defendants, on the other hand, submit that the terms "Class
Products" and "Relevant Products" refer to MDIs and TDIs alone.

As to the "Class Products," the Judge holds that discovery must be
relevant to the claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
The case is about a conspiracy to fix prices of MDI and TDI.
Including PU Systems in the definition of "Class Products" is not
within the claims asserted in the SAC and the sweeping amount of
discovery sought by the Plaintiffs goes too far astray of the
claims in this case.  Having also considered all of the
proportionality factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), the Judge finds
that such discovery is overly broad and vague, unduly burdensome,
and is not proportionate.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion is
denied such that the term "Class Products" does not include PU
Systems.

As to the "Relevant Products," the Judge holds that the discovery
must be relevant to the claims and proportional to the needs of the
case.  Again, the case is about a conspiracy to fix prices of MDI
and TDI.  Including polyols in the definition of "Relevant
Products" is not within the claims asserted in the SAC and is
tangential to the claims in the case.  Thus, the Judge finds that
such discovery is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and is not
proportionate.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied such
that the term "Relevant Products" does not include to polyols.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants
to Produce Documents and Structured Data, Judge Ambrose granted in
part and denied in part the Motion to Compel.  The relevant and
proportional time period for unstructured discovery is Jan. 1, 2015
through Dec. 31, 2019.  The Motion is denied in all other
respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycnhhgv4 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2969: 12 COVID Insurance Suits v. Erie Transferred to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Erie Insurance Exchange's COVID-19 Business
Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, has entered an order transferring 12 actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and,
with the consent of that court, assigned the cases to Judge Mark R.
Hornak for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The litigation consists of actions pending in the districts of
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

The litigation involves insurance claims for coverage of business
interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related
government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of
non-essential businesses.

The actions share common factual allegations that Erie wrongfully
denied policyholders' claims for business interruption protection
insurance. Thus, the actions present common factual and legal
questions that support centralization, and to promote the just and
efficient conduct of the actions.

Erie argued that centralization is not appropriate because the
actions involve different claims and different types of businesses
but the panel decided that the presence of additional or differing
legal theories is not significant.

A full-text copy of the JPML Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3pMgMCY


MDL 2977: 4 Broiler Chicken Grower Suits Transferred to E.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Broiler Chicken Grower MDL Antitrust Litigation
(No. II), No. 2977, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an
order transferring four actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma and, with the consent of that court,
assigned the cases to Judge Robert J. Shelby for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch,
Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver and Melissa Weaver, move under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The litigation
consists of one action each in the Districts of Colorado and
Kansas, Eastern District of North Carolina and Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in all the actions support centralization in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. Defendants oppose centralization, but are
amendable for the Eastern District of Oklahoma as transferee
district if so ruled.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyard Act arising from allegations that the Defendants agreed
not to compete for "Broiler Grow-Out Services," services of farmers
who raise broiler chickens under contracts with chicken processors
such as the Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants agreed,
among themselves, not to recruit or contract with chicken farmers
contracted by members of their group and that their submission of
cost information to Agri Stats (a third party) for use in
benchmarking reports is anticompetitive.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

A copy of the MDL Court's order is available at
https://bit.ly/2L9xPQr

MEDICREDIT INC: Court Certifies Class in Kwasniewski FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled HELEN KWASNIEWSKI, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No. 19-cv-701-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

Named Plaintiff Kwasniewski brings the putative class action under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against Defendant Medicredit
for sending allegedly misleading collection letters. Specifically,
the letter to Kwasniewski represented that a civil action "may" be
commenced if her debt remained unpaid, despite the creditor
allegedly having no intention to file suit.

In her complaint and her original motion, the Plaintiff sought to
certify a class of: (a) all individuals (b) to whom Medicredit sent
a letter in the form attached to Plaintiff's complaint as Exhibit A
(c) to a Wisconsin address (d) seeking to collect a debt for St.
Mary's Hospital in the amount of $1000.00 or less, (e) which letter
was sent at any time during a period beginning Aug. 28, 2018 (one
year prior to the filing of the action) and ending Sept. 18, 2019
(21 days after the filing of the action).

In her reply brief, the Plaintiff sought to strike the reference to
the $1,000 limit. The Defendant objects to the attempt to modify
her class definition, arguing that the "crux" of the Plaintiff's
claim was that St. Mary's does not intend to sue on "small debts,"
and that the Plaintiff's proposed omission of a dollar amount
fundamentally alters her case and should not be permitted.

Consistent with principles of fairness, Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure allows for amendments to a class
certification order at any time before judgment. At this point, the
Plaintiff proposed an alteration in her reply brief, although the
Defendant was given an opportunity to respond by sur-reply. More
fundamentally, the proposed change appears to alter the Plaintiff's
essential claim as expressed in her complaint and opposition to the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment -- that SSM does not pursue
lawsuits on debts under a certain dollar amount. The Plaintiff
will, therefore, not be permitted to strike the dollar amount from
the class certification.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff suggests that the dollar amount be
adjusted from $1,000 to $1,200, to conform to evidence that SSM
will not file a collection lawsuit on debts with an aggregate value
of less than $1,200. Indeed, in her complaint, the Plaintiff
expressly stated that she may adjust thes amount subsequent to
discovery and she has largely altered her arguments in subsequent
filings to reference this $1,200 figure.

Unlike the Plaintiff's request to strike the dollar amount
altogether, the adjustment does not fundamentally alter the nature
and scope of her claims, District Judge William M. Conley notes.
Moreover, the Defendant noted the adjustment but did not argue that
the Plaintiff should not be permitted to make it, focusing instead
on whether she should be allowed to strike the dollar amount
altogether.

Accordingly, in light of evidence of SSM's formal cap, the fact
that the Defendant has been on notice of the change in the specific
dollar amount, and the Defendant's apparent lack of specific
objection to the change, the Court will adopt the Plaintiff's
requested modification, adjusting the dollar amount from "$1000 or
less" to "less than $1200" in her class definition and will
consider the Plaintiff's class certification under the amended
definition.

Judge Conley also notes that it has also come to his attention that
a related case was filed in the Court on Sept. 30, 2020, but
mistakenly assigned to a different judge -- Byrnes v. Medicredit,
Inc., 20-cv-907. The case involves the same parties, who appear to
advance similar claims and defenses, although with some notable
differences, including proposing a broader class across multiple
states. Moreover, the counsel for the parties appears to be the
same. Given the substantial overlap, the case will be reassigned to
him for ease of adjudication. Also, the Court will hold a status
conference via Zoom with the parties on Jan. 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.,
to discuss scheduling for both cases and whether consolidation
would be appropriate.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
granted.

The Court certifies the following class pursuant to Rule 23: (a)
all individuals (b) to whom Medicredit sent a letter in the form
attached to Plaintiff's complaint as Exhibit A (c) to a Wisconsin
address (d) seeking to collect a debt for St. Mary's Hospital in
the amount of less than $1200, (e) which letter was sent at any
time during a period beginning Aug. 28, 2018 (one year prior to the
filing of the action) and ending Sept. 18, 2019 (21 days after the
filing of the action).

The Court appoints Helen Kwasniewski Eric as the class
representative. It appoints Attorneys Daniel Edelman, Heidi Miller,
and Zeshan Usman and the firms Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, HNM Law, LLC, Usman Law Firm, LLC, as the class counsel.

On or before Jan. 15, 2021, the parties should submit a joint
proposed form and method of notice, or if unable to agree, the
Plaintiff should submit her own proposed notice, with the Defendant
to respond by Jan. 22, 2021.

The Court will hold a status conference on Jan. 8, 2021, at 2:00
p.m. It will send invitations to a Zoom video hearing by email to
counsel. All participants are reminded that video or audio
recordings of the proceedings are strictly prohibited.

The Defendant's motion to file a sur-reply is granted. Consistent
with the Court's Nov. 17, 2020 text order, summary judgment motions
are now due Jan. 18, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 21,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y94mtpq5 from
Leagle.com.


MIB LIMOUSINE: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Personal Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA YOUNG, ABRAHAM VARGAS, DAWN FREEMAN, and AMIR SALAAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MIB LIMOUSINE SERVICES, LLC, SELIM ASLAN, and DOES 1
to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00047874-CU-0E-CTL
(Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., December 28, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay hourly wage, failure to
pay overtime wage, failure to provide required meal and rest
periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse for business expense, failure to remit
gratuities, retaliation for complaints of labor code violations,
failure to pay wages at termination, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiffs were employed as personal drivers/chauffeurs for the
Defendants at any time between 2017 and 2019.

MIB Limousine Services, LLC, also known as MIB Transportation and
MIB Worldwide Transportation, is a transportation services company,
with its principal place of business located in San Diego,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:  
                                                                   

         Matthew R. Miller, Esq.
         Carlos Americano, Esq.
         MILLER LAW FIRM
         Historic Louis Bank of Commerce Building
         835 Fifth Avenue, Suite 301
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 687-0143
         Facsimile: (619) 687-0136

                - and –
         
         Brian C. Dawson, Esq.
         DAWSON & OZANNE
         5755 Oberlin Dr. Suite 301
         San Diego, CA 92131
         Telephone: (619) 988-2135

MICHAEL BOUDREAUX: Court Tosses Provisional Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES CRISWELL, et al.,
v. MICHAEL BOUDREAUX, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Tulare
County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order:

   1. denying provisional certification of a subclass of
      medically vulnerable inmates; and

   2. denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
      injunction without prejudice.

The court concludes based upon the evidence currently before it
that plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the
merits of their deliberate indifference claims. The court is not
persuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the defendant's
purported failure to adequately monitor medically vulnerable
inmates.

Wellpath's chronic care list does overlap substantially with the
plaintiffs proposed medically vulnerable subclass, and Wellpath
staff employ its chronic care list to monitor and track the
treatment of inmates who have chronic care needs. The Plaintiffs
have not presented any evidence at this time to show that
Wellpath's process in this regard is inadequate. In light of
defendant's process for tracking and monitoring inmates who need
chronic care, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are
likely to succeed in showing that the defendant's failure to also
track inmates who are obese or over age 65 but are not in need of
chronic care, constitutes a reckless disregard for all medically
vulnerable inmates, rules the Court.

A copy of the Court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
provisional class certification dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rxf5uZat no extra
charge.[CC]

MICHIGAN: Rouse, et al. Seek to Certify Class of SMT Prisoners
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et al.,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON, MALINDA BRAMAN, LEE MCROBERTS, DAVE SHAVER, JOHN
DOES and JANE DOES (1-100), Case No. 2:20-cv-11409-MAG-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons who were incarcerated within Parnall
      Correctional Facility (SMT) on March 13, 2020 at any time
      up to and including the date of the fairness hearing or
      trial;" and

   2. appointing the law firm Oliver Law Group PC as class
      counsel for the proposed class.

On January 9, 2020 the World Health Organization announced
coronavirus-related pneumonia in Wuhan China (Covid-19). This
announcement was followed by multiple news breaking events
regarding the spread of Covid-19 and efforts to restrict same. On
March 13, 2020 the United States declared Covid-19 a National
Emergency. On April 26, 2020 Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued
Executive Order 2020-29 regarding temporary Covid-19 protocols
regarding the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC).

The Individual Defendants are prison officials who have allegedly
created, allowed, and have failed to protect the Plaintiff's from a
serious and substantial risk of illness and death related to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed and refused to
institute isolation of the Plaintiffs and the putative class during
testing after exposure or when symptoms present; failed and refused
to institute contact tracing of the Plaintiffs and the putative
class after positive testing; and failed and refused to take steps
to minimize crowds to the extent same is possible, despite clear
physical ability to do so.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38GcE0w
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alyson Oliver, Esq.
          Cameron Bell, Esq.
          Christopher Brown, Esq.
          OLIVER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1647 W. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 327-6556
          E-mail: notifications@oliverlawgroup.com

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Court Dismisses Vieth Inmate Suit v. Dobson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN ALAN VIETH, Plaintiff v. INSPECTOR A. DOBSON,
WILLIAM DUCKERT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and MILWAUKEE
COUNTY JAIL, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1615-bhl (E.D. Wis.), Judge
Brett H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim.

Plaintiff Vieth, representing himself, filed a complaint alleging
that the Defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 by closing the housing unit gym in the Milwaukee
County Jail due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Vieth then filed an
amended complaint seeking to bring the case as a class action.  He
has also filed a motion to proceed without prepaying the filing
fee.

Mr. Vieth, a pretrial detainee, alleges that the Defendants have
not allowed inmates of the Milwaukee County Jail out of their cells
for physical exercise since March 11, 2020.  He states that in
response to his multiple grievances complaining about lack of
access to the housing unit gym, the Defendants responded that they
are following the Centers for Disease Control recommended
guidelines for the COVID-19 pandemic.  He also states the
defendants have indicated they are not planning on opening the
housing unit gym any time soon.  He further alleges the Defendants
are requiring inmates to stay locked in their cells "for 26 hours
every other day" for the purposes of maintaining social distancing.
For relief, Vieth seeks a court order requiring Milwaukee County
Jail to reopen the housing unit gym and damages for the violation
of his constitutional rights.

On Nov. 9, 2020, the Court determined that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(b)(4), Vieth was not required to pay an initial
partial filing fee.  Judge Ludwig grants Vieth's motion for leave
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and allows him to
pay the full filing fee over time.

Turning to the merits of the amended complaint, the Judge finds
that Vieth does not sufficiently allege that the Defendants'
actions were objectively unreasonable and excessive in relation to
a legitimate non-punitive purpose.  In dealing with a pandemic of
this nature, which experts state requires social distancing, jails
and prisons face unique problems requiring unique solutions because
social distancing in jail is challenging.  As a matter of law,
severely restricting the movement of inmates and closing the gym,
while inconvenient and uncomfortable, considering the ongoing
pandemic, is not unreasonable or excessive in relation to Milwaukee
County Jail's stated purpose of preventing a COVID-19 outbreak.
Indeed, the City of Milwaukee has restricted the ability of people
who are not incarcerated to go to the gym in the City of Milwaukee.
As such, Vieth fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Ludwig granted Vieth's motion for
leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.  She dismissed
the case under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1)
because the amended complaint fails to state a claim.  The Judge
will enter judgment accordingly.

Mr. Vieth has incurred a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
The agency that has custody of Vieth must collect from his
institution trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee by
collecting monthly payments from the Vieth's prison trust account
in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited
to the Plaintiff's trust account and forwarding payments to the
clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.
The agency must clearly identify the payments by the case name and
number.  If Vieth transfers to another county, state or federal
institution, the transferring institution must forward a copy of
the Order, along with the Plaintiff's remaining balance, to the
receiving institution.

A copy of the Order will be sent to the officer in charge of the
agency where the Plaintiff is confined.  The Order and the judgment
to follow are final.  A dissatisfied party may appeal the Court's
decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing
in the Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of
judgment.  The Court may extend the deadline if a party timely
requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for
not being able to meet the 30-day deadline.

Under limited circumstances, a party may ask the Court to alter or
amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or
ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b).  Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must
be filed within 28i days of the entry of judgment.  The Court
cannot extend that deadline.  Any motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the judgment.
The Court cannot extend such deadline.

The Judge expects parties to closely review all applicable rules
and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7yeurmj from Leagle.com.


MISEN INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Misen Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Misen Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10980 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Misen -- https://misen.com/ -- manufactures and sells cooking
tools.[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.com


MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDARESS CARTER, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00555-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered
an order:

   1. denying Carter's motion for class certification; and

   2. denying Judicial Correction Services, Inc.'s (JCS') motion
      to reconsider.

The Court said, "Mr. Carter seeks to certify a City class (together
with two subclasses) and a false imprisonment class. The City class
is defined identically to the Bearden class in McCullough, except
that Mr. Carter's class period starts a few months later. As the
McCullough plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to show that
their class was ascertainable, so too has Mr. Carter. And because
the class cannot be ascertained, neither can the subclasses. Mr.
Carter's false imprisonment class is defined identically to the
false imprisonment class in McCullough, except that Mr. Carter's
class period starts a few months later. As the McCullough
plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to show that their class
was ascertainable, so
too has Mr. Carter. The Court concludes that consolidation of this
case and McCullough is not appropriate."

The McCullough case is captioned as ANGELA MCCULLOUGH, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00463-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.).

In McCullough, Judge Lamberth denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification for the following classes:

      (a) A Bearden class, consisting of:

          "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed
          on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt
          commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after
          JCS petitioned the court to revoke probation; and (2)
          served any of that jail time on or after July 1,
          2013;" and

      (b) A false imprisonment class, consisting of:

          "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed
          on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt
          commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after
          JCS petitioned the court to' revoke probation; and (2)
          served any of that jail time on or after July 1,
          2009."

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WRv2hv at no extra charge.[CC]

MONTGOMERY, AL: Class Certification Denied in Traffic Fines Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA MCCULLOUGH, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00463-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth
entered an order:

   1. denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for
      the following:

      (a) a Bearden class, consisting of:

          "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed
          on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt
          commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after
          JCS petitioned the court to revoke probation; and (2)
          served any of that jail time on or after July 1,
          2013;"

      (b) a False imprisonment class, consisting of:

          "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed
          on JCS-supervised probation, who: (1) had debt
          commuted to jail time in a JCS-supervised case after
          JCS petitioned the court to' revoke probation; and (2)
          served any of that jail time on or after July 1,
          2009;" and

      (c) an Abuse of Process class, consisting of:

          "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed
          on JCS-supervised probation: (1) who at any time paid
          less than the minimum monthly payment ordered by the
          court; and (2) from whom JCS continued to collect or
          attempt to collect after July 1, 2013;" and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the City's motion to
      reconsider and approving summary judgment for the City on
      Mr. Jones's section 1983 claim;

   3. denying Judicial Correction Services, Inc.'s (JCS's)
      motion to reconsider; and

   4. denying the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider.

The Court said, "The plaintiffs opened the class certification
hearing with a plea for justice: they argued that absent class
certification, the putative class members would not be able to hold
the City and JCS accountable. The Court is cognizant of that
concern, but it does not believe today's decision creates
injustice. In a few months, a jury will hear this case. The trial
may even serve as a kind of bellwether for other similar claims.
The plaintiffs here and in other section 1983 cases are entitled to
attorneys' fees if they prevail. 42 U.S.C. section 1988(b). Their
path to relief remains open. The motion for class certification
must be denied. The plaintiffs may still pursue accountability, but
not as class representatives."

The Court has considered consolidating this case with the Carter
case several times. The Carter case is captioned as ALDARESS
CARTER, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.).

Because it cannot certify a class, the Court concludes that
consolidation is not warranted. While the cases involve common
questions of law and fact, the Court finds that the additional
burden of separate trials would be minimal and that the presence of
different causes of action in each case risks confusing the jury,
the Court added.

The case arises from the system of collecting traffic fines in
Montgomery, Alabama between 2009-2014. During that time, the
Montgomery Municipal Court routinely jailed traffic offenders for
failing to pay fines without inquiring into their ability to pay.
In carrying out that system, the Municipal Court deprived offenders
of their due process and equal protection rights not to be
incarcerated for their poverty. During that period, the City of
Montgomery contracted on behalf of itself and the Municipal Court
with JCS to supervise Municipal Court-ordered misdemeanor
probation.

The plaintiffs are Montgomery residents who served probation with
JCS after they were unable to pay their traffic tickets. The
plaintiffs sued the City and JCS on behalf of themselves and
purported classes of similarly situated persons. Their operative
complaint alleges causes of action for violations of the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
and for false imprisonment and abuse of process.

Montgomery is the capital city of Alabama. JCS is a privately held
probation company established in 2001 and based in Georgia. Its CEO
is Robert McMichael of Atlanta, GA. The company acts as a
self-funding probation agency for local courts, mostly in the
southeast United States.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and opinion dated Dec. 23, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMxUGY at no
extra charge.[CC]

MORGAN STANLEY: Shafer Seeks to Recover Deferred Wages Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew T. Shafer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY COMPENSATION MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION
COMMITTEE, and John/Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-11047
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to recover the deferred
compensation that financial advisors (FAs) forfeited when they left
Morgan Stanley.

According to the complaint, FAs' compensation is based on the
revenue generated by their clients' investment activities, with
Morgan Stanley automatically designating a portion of the very
first dollar they earn as "deferred compensation". Morgan Stanley
allocates 75% of an FAs' deferred compensation to the Morgan
Stanley Compensation Incentive Plan, which vests in 6 years (and
previously vested in eight years), and 25% of their deferred
compensation to the Morgan Stanley Equity Incentive Compensation
Plan, which vests in four years. Morgan Stanley causes FAs to
forfeit their deferred compensation if they leave Morgan Stanley
before these vesting dates.

The FA Deferred Compensation Program is an "employee benefit
pension plan" under ERISA because it "results in a deferral of
income by employees for periods extending to the termination of
covered employment or beyond." Specifically, the FA Deferred
Compensation Program "results in a deferral of income" because FAs
are paid for work (i.e., the revenue they generate) years after
they perform the work. The program also "results in" income being
deferred "for periods extending to the termination of covered
employment or beyond" because FAs receive their deferred
compensation after their employment ends if they retire, become
disabled, or go work for the government.

The Plaintiff worked as an FA at Morgan Stanley for 9 years from
2009–2018. When he left Morgan Stanley, the Defendants allegedly
invoked the Cancellation Rule to deny him over $500,000 in deferred
compensation that he earned under the FA Deferred Compensation
Program. The Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court under ERISA
declaring that the FA Deferred Compensation Program is subject to
ERISA and that the Cancellation Rule violates ERISA's vesting and
anti-forfeiture requirements. He seeks the payment of his and the
other class members' deferred compensation that was wrongfully
forfeited. He also asserts a claim against the Compensation
Committee for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for applying the
Cancellation Rule in violation of ERISA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Certified Investment Management Analyst and a
Certified Exit Planning Advisor, with more than 20 years of
experience as a financial advisor.

Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that, through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, including MSSB, provides financial
advisory services to clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew P. Jasinski
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          27 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          Email: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                 mjasinski@motleyrice.com
          
               - and -

          Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
          AJAMIE LLP
          460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (713) 860-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
          Email: tajamie@ajamie.com

               - and -

          David S. Siegel , Esq.
          John S. "Jack" Edwards, Jr., Esq.
          Dona Szak, Esq.
          AJAMIE LLP
          Pennzoil Place - South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 860-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
          Email: dsiegel@ajamie.com
                 jedwards@ajamie.com
                 dszak@ajamie.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                 mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                 dneedham@ikrlaw.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02512-CAB-DEB (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 28, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.neimanmarcus.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 Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendants' Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.

Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. operates as a departmental store. The
Company offers women's and men's apparel, handbags, shoes,
cosmetics, jewelry, and home decoration products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEOVASC INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Dec. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Neovasc Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN) from November 1, 2019 through October
27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Neovasc Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the results of
COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the Reducer, contained
imbalances in missing information present in the control group
versus the treatment group, including significant missing
information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary
endpoint; (2) the imbalance in missing information indicated that
control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not
blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data
collection; (3) blinding is critical when studying a
placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably
likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) as a
result, the Company's Premarket Approval application (PMA) for
Reducer was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical
data; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


NEOVASC INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Neovasc Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN) between
October 10, 2018 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 5, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Neovasc investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Neovasc class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1976.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the
Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information present in the
control group versus the treatment group, including significant
missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the
primary endpoint; (2) the imbalance in missing information
indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment
assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in
additional data collection; (3) blinding is critical when studying
a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably
likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) as a
result, Neovasc's Premarket Approval application (PMA) for Reducer
was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical data; and
(7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Neovasc's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 5,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1976.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


NEW YORK: Seaport House Challenges State's Response to COVID-19
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAPORT HOUSE (HOPKINS HAWLEY LLC), THE GREATER NEW YORK MERCHANTS'
ALLIANCE, and COSTIN TARSOAGA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDREW CUOMO, in his
personal and official capacity as Governor of the State of New
York, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, THE NEW YORK CITY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, and MAYOR De BLASIO, in his personal and
official capacity as Mayor of The City of New York, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10932-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 25, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for constitutional violations
including deprivation of fundamental liberty interests and due
process rights.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to devise and apply
the least restrictive means to confront the pandemic through a
working partnership between the private and government sectors of
the state. Instead of engaging with the business and medical
communities with the goal of developing a sustainable approach to
mitigating the spread of the virus, the Governor continues to
respond to the pandemic with knee jerk responses that only serve to
keep an already emotionally frayed citizenry in a never-ending
state of fear and paranoia and, as well, actually is the proximate
cause of more spread and deaths related to the pandemic. The
Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered irreparable harm because
of Governor's Executive Orders and restrictions, which pose
constant threats to their livelihoods and businesses.

Seaport House (Hopkins Hawley LLC) is a restaurant operator located
at 229 Front Street, New York, New York.

The Greater New York Merchants' Alliance is a non-profit entity
which represents restaurant owners in the State of New York,
located at 231 Front Street, New York, New York.

The New York City Department of Finance is the revenue service,
taxation agency and recorder of deeds of the government of New York
City.

The New York City Sheriff's Department is the primary civil law
enforcement agency for New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Migir Ilganayev, Esq.
         139 Fulton Street, Suite 801
         New York, NY 10038
         E-mail: ilganayevlaw@gmail.com

                 - and –

         Kian D. Khatibi, Esq.
         99 John Street, Suite 2205
         New York, NY 10038
         E-mail: kian@nyslegal.com

                 - and –

         Joseph D. McBride, Esq.
         99 Park Ave, 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         E-mail: jmcbride@mcbridelawnyc.com

NORTON HEALTHCARE: 403(b) Savings Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA DISSELKAMP, et al.,
v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-GNS-CHL
(W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class;

      "all persons, other than the Defendants, who were
      participants as of January 22, 2012, in the Norton
      Healthcare 403(b) Retirement Savings Plan (Plan),
      including: (i) beneficiaries of deceased participants who,
      as of January 22, 2012, were receiving benefit payments or
      will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the
      future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified
      Domestic Relations Order who, as of January 22, 2012, were
      receiving benefit payments or will be entitled to receive
      benefit payments in the future; and (iii) all persons,
      other than Defendants, who have been participants or
      beneficiaries in the Plan and had account balances in the
      Plan at any time between January 22, 2012, through the
      date of preliminary approval of the Settlement;" and

   2. preliminary approving the class action settlement:

      --  The Defendants have agreed to pay a sum of $5,750,000
          into a Settlement Fund.

      --  The Settlement reached between the Parties more than
          justifies class notice and a hearing and is sufficient
          to warrant preliminary approval by the Court.
          Preliminary approval will not foreclose interested
          persons from objecting to the Settlement and thereby
          presenting any dissenting viewpoints to the Court.

Norton Healthcare is one of Kentucky's health care systems with
more than 40 clinics and hospitals in and around Louisville,
Kentucky.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 22,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34ZRjhJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Friend, Esq.
          Robert W. "Joe" Bishop
          Lauren E. Freeman
          BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
          6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6
          Louisville, KY 40222
          E-mail: firm@bishoplegal.net

               - and -

          Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
          TOMLINSON LAW, LLC
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: hilton@tomlawllc.com

               - and -

          James H. White, Ivm, Esq.
          JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a federal class action suit initiated by George
Barney.

On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.


In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal
securities laws from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018.  

Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer’s
planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company
inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two
major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  

In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon a blog
appearing in Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018 in which it was
claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence of
several entities identified as significant customers, Plaintiffs
purported to verify some of the information alleged in the Seeking
Alpha blog.

By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint that Nova, Ms. Lam and Mr. Chuang
filed. The Nova Defendants accordingly answered the Amended
Complaint. The Court entered a scheduling order setting a final
pretrial conference for July 20, 2020 that it without request from
the parties continued to October 19, 2020.

Plaintiffs waited until recently to pursue discovery and have yet
to file a Motion for Class Certification. On August 7, 2020, the
Nova Defendants filed a Motion for Interim Discovery Conference to
address the pace and scope of discovery.  

By Order entered October 1, 2020 the Court denied the Motion for a
Status Conference and continued the Final Pretrial Conference until
April 19, 2021.  

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Data Breach Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Carreiro, Esq. -- pcarreiro@carltonfields.com -- and
Joseph Swanson, Esq. -- jswanson@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra, report that the holidays came
early for class action defendants in the Eleventh Circuit. Within
just over a month, that court issued two decisions with potentially
large consequences for data breach litigation in the Eleventh
Circuit: Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC and Muransky v. Godiva
Chocolatier, Inc.

With Johnson, the Eleventh Circuit effectively forbade service
awards to named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits, finding such
payments contrary to two separate Supreme Court decisions. These
service awards, typically between $1,000 and $7,500 per named
plaintiff, were an incentive for named plaintiffs to bring suit on
behalf of a class, and without them, plaintiffs' firms may have
more trouble finding willing class representatives.

In Muransky, the Eleventh Circuit weighed heavily in opposition to
finding standing in class actions based solely on the occurrence of
a data breach. Although the decision was made in a Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act case, its language and reasoning
extends deeply into the concept of Article III standing in data
breach class actions. As explained in Muransky, allegations of a
mere "elevated risk of identity theft" is insufficient for standing
purposes. Plaintiffs hoping to survive motions to dismiss must show
actual identity theft or other concrete harm, and cannot simply
rely on the occurrence of a breach and prophylactic measures to
establish their ability to sue in federal court.

Together, the decisions serve as a onetwo punch to data breach
plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit. These decisions, a likely
reflection of an increasingly skeptical court when it comes to data
breach cases, could be only the beginning. We will continue to
monitor this activity and evaluate what it means for future data
breach class actions. [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 25, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative securities class action suit entitled, In Re
NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, is pending.

The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit,
captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018,
and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an
amended complaint on May 13, 2020.

The amended complaint asserts that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA
executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements related to channel
inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand
between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also allege
that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

On June 29, 2020, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations
of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the individual defendants.

As of September 14, 2020, the motion was fully briefed but the
Court has not yet issued a decision.

NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company
worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor.
The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Settles Sewage Lawsuit for $11.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Laitner, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that when Ken
Flaherty woke up last summer to find nearly two feet of
sewage-tainted stormwater in his Beverly Hills basement -- and then
heard that hundreds of his neighbors were victims too, as well as
others in Birmingham and Royal Oak -- he vowed to sue.

The cities involved were at fault along with Oakland County's drain
bosses, he decided.

Flaherty, a semi-retired civil and environmental engineer, quickly
made himself an expert on what he says were defects in his
neighborhood's sewers. Then, with a large dollop of humor, he
reached out to others with a website he named
schittsfoundation.com, adorned with photos of his basement filled
with brown water on Aug. 28.

Since then, more than 125 other homeowners have contacted him about
their sewage-drenched basements. Yet, as indignant as Flaherty
became over the $30,000 in damages to his home, and as determined
as he said he is to sue, his website warns about how hard it is to
win a lawsuit in Michigan over a basement sewer backup.

His website reviews the law that governs such lawsuits, Public Act
222, calling it an unfair law "that stacks the deck against
homeowners affected by defective combined sewage systems."

A "combined sewage system" is one that mixes sanitary waste with
stormwater. That's the troublesome design that afflicts most of
metro Detroit, as well as many of the older communities throughout
Michigan and the nation's East Coast. It works fine when the
weather is dry. But it easily backs up in heavy rains, sometimes
sending raw or partially treated human waste into rivers and lakes
or into basements -- or both.

As Flaherty contemplates filing a lawsuit, warned by his own lawyer
about the small odds of winning, a huge batch of such lawsuits --
joined in a single big class-action case -- is headed toward a
settlement and payouts for Oakland County residents in 10
communities. The case involves thousands of homes damaged by the
momentous rainstorm of August 2014.

That storm left cars submerged on I-75, inundated school buildings
and businesses, dumped an estimated 10 billion gallons of
sewage-tainted stormwater into the Detroit River, and flooded
countless basements throughout southeastern Michigan. Sewage-laced
stormwater rose in some basements as much as four feet.


Damage per house was in many cases in the thousands of dollars. But
the checks that Oakland County residents receive likely will be in
the hundreds of dollars, according to reports of the tentative
settlement.

It's making the rounds of city councils on its way to a court
hearing on Jan. 20, when all parties are likely to seek a judge's
consent. The settlement was reached not through a trial that the
plaintiff homeowners would've had to win. Instead, it was reached
through mediation, outside of court. According to several lawyers
familiar with such cases, the modest settlement is a sign of how
hard it is to win basement sewage cases in Michigan.

The total settlement for property owners in the 10 cities is
expected to be $11.5 million, according to officials in Berkley,
whose city council was among the first to approve their part of the
class-action case. Sound like a windfall? It won't be, not after a
judge awards attorney fees and costs of as much as 35%, after which
the cash must be divided among thousands of affected homeowners in
Berkley, Birmingham, Clawson, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Huntington
Woods, Madison Heights, Pleasant Ridge, Oak Park and Royal Oak.

Berkley will shell out $385,000 to claimants plus commit to
spending about $200,000 on future sewer improvements, City Manager
Matt Baumgarten said. That's a lot less than the original $22
million in damages that plaintiffs demanded, Baumgarten said. The
Troy City Council is expected to approve its part of the settlement
on Jan. 11, Troy City Attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said. The roughly
150 affected homes are mainly in the area of 14 Mile Road and
Stephenson Highway, Grigg Bluhm said.

"The proposed agreement has Troy paying $34,333 and agreeing to
make at least $17,348 in future improvements in addition to the
regular maintenance and capital the City has continuously expended
for our system," she said.

If Troy's $34,000 payout were divided equally among 150 homeowners,
each would get a check for about $226 -- except that those checks
are expected to be smaller because, before dividing it, lawyers
will deduct fees and costs awarded by a judge.

Some cities declined to talk about their proposed settlements,
citing attorney-client privilege that they said is in effect until
the hearing on Jan. 20 before Oakland Circuit Judge Phyllis
McMillen. Similarly, Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner
Jim Nash said it was premature to discuss the details.

"I can tell you this. It isn't costing us much more than we would
expect to pay just defending this lawsuit, and we would've cost us
more if we'd taken it all the way through a jury trial," even
assuming that the county won, Nash said.

'A 300-year storm'
"We tried to be as fair as possible. Remember, this was a 300-year
storm and declared a national disaster by the president," Nash
said.

Improvements to the county's and region's sewer systems are
constantly aimed at lowering the risk of future flooding, he said.

"Right now, they're building a tunnel under I-75 between 8 Mile and
12 Mile that's going to hold a lot of the runoff from the freeway"
during heavy rains, and "if we'd had that back in 2014, that
freeway wouldn't have flooded," he said.

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the massive class-action
case -- Dave Dubin of Liddle & Dubin in Detroit -- also said it was
premature to talk about the proposed settlement. He said that the
case, like many involving sewer damage, has been time-consuming and
costly to pursue.

"It's been a long six years, and costs were multiple six figures to
research this," Dubin said. To win, lawyers must hire experts who
can testify about how sewers operate and what can go wrong in
complex systems of giant pumps, miles of piping, pressure and
gravity. The total number of claimants in the class-action case was
about 19,000 in the 10 cities, Dubin said.

His firm's website says it has "successfully recovered millions of
dollars on behalf of thousands of clients claiming damages as a
result of a sewage backup or flooding event" caused by "a
governmental entity."

As promising as that sounds, Michigan's law sets a high bar for
property owners seeking compensation after a sewage backup.

Flint attorney Dean Yeotis owns a shop in Ferndale called Found
Sound, which sells new and used vinyl records.

"Ironically, we got flooded in the basement pretty good in August
2014. We lost a lot of records stored down there." But Yeotis
didn't file a lawsuit.

"I may know all about litigating these cases but I'm like everybody
else. I have a million other things to do, and these cases are
extremely difficult to prove. I'd have to prove the elements," he
said.

By that he meant that he'd have to show a jury exactly how he'd
fulfilled five elements required under Michigan Public Act 222
before a property owner can win a sewage backup case. Here's a
summary of the five elements:

Identify the government agency in charge of the property owner's
sewer system and notify it of the problem within 45 days of the
sewage backup.
Establish that the sewage system involved had a defect.
Prove that the government agency knew or should've known about the
defect.
Show that the agency failed to take reasonable steps in a
reasonable time to remedy the defect.

Demonstrate that the defect was the "substantial proximate cause"
of the basement backup -- meaning, it was more than 50% of the
cause.

"At the end of the day, this legislation was supposed to make
everything streamlined in these cases," Yeotis said. But it ended
up leading to far fewer lawsuits and fewer successful ones, he
said.

Still, Yeotis said, he's determined to pursue legal action on
behalf of Flaherty and many other homeowners struck by this year's
storm on Aug. 28. He has 18 clients signed up in Beverly Hills,
five in Birmingham, four in Royal Oak, "and I know there's many
more who should be part of this."

Michigan's Public Act 222 was passed during a spate of regulatory
change under former Gov. John Engler, at a time when cities asked
for protection from liability, Huntington Woods City Commissioner
Jules Olsman said.

"Engler knew they couldn't abolish the flooding cases, so they just
made the bar higher. It's really a high burden" for plaintiffs to
prove, said Olsman, who is an attorney. He said leaders in
Huntington Woods were torn in two directions over their part of the
class-action lawsuit.

"We realized that people were really angry about this. It put us in
a dilemma. You want people to come out of this with something, but
we just can't dip into the city treasury for hundreds of thousands
of dollars," Olsman said. In the end, the city's entire payout of
about $500,000 will be covered by its insurance policy, and "we
aren't taking a penny for this from the city treasury," he said.

Sewers aren't perfect

"I think half the houses in the city flooded," Olsman said. "But it
was approaching an insurmountable legal hurdle to satisfy the kind
of proof you need under that statute. Look, we have a
75-to-100-year-old sewer system. It's not going to be perfect.".

Some residents were able to get insurance to cover their damage,
but not many, Olsman added.

"I think a lot of people learned a lot about their homeowners'
insurance from this – what it does and doesn't cover." Such
policies typically exclude coverage of basement sewage backups
unless the policyholder pays considerably more for supplemental
coverage.

Flaherty's website opens with a zinger he aims at the county, city
and village sewer bosses that he blames for his damaged home:
"Dedicated to preventing Oakland County officials from using our
basements as raw sewage retention basins" -- (signed) Mrs.
Schmidlap O'Schitts, Beverly Hills, MI August 2020."

There is, of course, no Mrs. O'Schitts. Flaherty's wife is Jennifer
Flaherty, shown cleaning up their basement in some of the photos
the couple submitted to village and county officials. But apart
from its humor, the website is full of serious information about
how Flaherty and his wife toted up $30,000 in damage, then spent
$10,000 to install high-tech sump pumps with back-up power -- in
case their electricity goes out in a storm -- along with check
valves in their basement drains, hoping to prevent another sewage
nightmare.

"I've lived here 22 years, and we'd never had a backup before. And
then I had 8,000 gallons of sewage in my basement," he said.

As much as by the damage, Flaherty said he's upset that local
officials at a Village of Beverly Hills council meeting, about two
weeks after the August rain storm, repeatedly told the audience
that more backups were inevitable.

"I just think that's unacceptable," Flaherty said.

As an engineer, he said he was sure that the area's sewers were
faulty. It didn't take him long to turn up something he considers a
serious defect.

By poring over engineering maps of his town's sewers, Flaherty said
he's turned up several examples of large pipes in his neighborhood
that force their sewage to flow into smaller ones.

"Anyone knows, that's going to cause backups," he said. [GN]


OASIS LIFESTYLE: Settlement in Warren Class Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD A. WARREN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OASIS LIFESTYLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20CV48-PPS/MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted
the Plaintiff's Petition for Approval of Attorneys' Fees in Class
and FLSA Collective Action Settlement, and the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action and FLSA Collective Action Settlement
Agreement.

The settlement in the matter encompasses claims brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
claims brought under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS") as a
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action.  The parties presented argument
regarding final approval of the settlement.  The Plaintiff's
counsel moved for final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Simon granted (i) the Plaintiff's Dec. 7, 2020 Petition for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees, and (ii) granted Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement, which was preliminarily approved on Aug. 12,
2020.  He approved the Class Action and FLSA Collective Action
Settlement Agreement as within the range of possible approval by
the Court, and as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class under the circumstances of the case.

For the sole purpose of administering the proposed settlement
reflected in the Class Action portion of the Settlement Agreement,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge certified
the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, which is defined as follows:
Present hourly paid Oasis employees and former hourly paid Oasis
employees who voluntarily terminated their employment and who wore
similar PPE to that worn by Plaintiff Warren, who worked at any
time from Jan. 14, 2018 through Jan. 14, 2020.

The Judge further appointed, again for the sole purpose of
administering the proposed settlement reflected in the Class Action
Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff Warren as the class representative
and the following counsel as the Class Counsel: Robert J. Hunt of
The Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, LLC, in Carmel, Indiana; and
Robert P. Kondras, Jr. of Hassler Kondras & Miller LLP in Terre
Haute, Indiana.

For the sole purpose of administering the proposed settlement
reflected in the FLSA Collective Action portion of the Settlement
Agreement, he certified the FLSA Collective Action Settlement
Class, which is defined as follows: Present hourly paid Oasis
employees and former hourly paid Oasis employees who wore similar
PPE to that worn by Plaintiff Warren, who worked at any time from
Jan. 14, 2018 through Jan. 14, 2020.

Judge Simon further appointed, again for the sole purpose of
administering the proposed settlement reflected in the FLSA
Collective Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff Warren as the
class representative and the following counsel as the FLSA Class
Counsel: Robert J. Hunt of The Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, LLC of
Carmel, Indiana; and Robert P. Kondras, Jr. of Hassler Kondras
Miller LLP of Terre Haute, Indiana.

The Judge approved the Plaintiff's Counsels' combined,
lodestar-based attorney's fees and costs in the agreed upon amount
of $35,000.  Any additional class administration costs will be
borne by the Plaintiff's counsel.  He granted final approval of the
agreed-upon service awards to Lead Plaintiff Richard A. Warren in
the sum of $5,000.  The payment will be made within 10 days of the
Court's final approval of the settlement agreement.

The following FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs will be paid FLSA damages plus
their individual $50 Rule 23 class action payment ($2,867.14), in
the following sums: Richard Warren--$87.86, Lloyd Flower--$571.43,
Robert Raven--$135.71, Jamar Hammonds--$132.14, Patricia Barragon
Herrera--$88.57, William Miller--$119.29, William Brady--$60, Amy
Hopkins--$163.57, Barrett Frost--$269.29, Ana Muro--$78.57, Jamie
Reynolds--$275.71, Timothy Pirtle--$77.14, Debra Burke--$60.71,
John Lullenberg--$194.29, Anthony Norris, Jr.--$52.14, Aaron
Bailey--$78.57, William Deason--$231.43, Kaylee
Patterson--$190.71.

Checks will be mailed as expeditiously as possible, but within 30
days of the Court's final approval of the settlement.

The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without fees, costs or
disbursements to any party, except as provided in the Settlement
Agreement as to the Plaintiff's counsel fees and costs.  Final
judgment will be entered accordingly.  The payments to the class
members under the Settlement Agreement and the Order will commence
in a manner consistent with the Order's deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yawrcrby from Leagle.com.


ODDITYMALL: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OddityMall. The case
is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. OddityMall, Case No. 2:20-cv-06286
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Odditymall -- https://odditymall.com/ -- features gifts, gadgets,
outdoor gear, home products, and novelty gifts as well as offers
gift ideas for men, woman, children, and even pets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHIO: Appeals Court Affirms Order Enforcing Settlement in Merrill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake County,
affirms a judgment granting the motion to enforce a settlement
agreement in the lawsuit titled STATE ex rel. ROBERT MERRILL,
TRUSTEE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, HOMER S. TAFT, et al.,
Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees v. STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, et al., Defendants-Appellees, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, et al., Intervening Defendants-Appellees, GEORGE
SORTINO, Appellant, Case No. 2019-L-164 (Ohio App.).

Appellant Sortino appeals from the judgment entry entered in the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas granting the Appellees' motion to
enforce a settlement agreement and for civil contempt. Sortino's
argument is that the settlement agreement entered into during a
class action proceeding, which was not appealed, is defective.
Therefore, he argues that he is not bound as a class member by the
agreement's prohibition on bringing future actions against the
Appellees related to the class action and that he is free to
proceed with a separate class action suit filed in Erie County.

The Appellate Court affirms the judgment.

The facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal began
with the filing of a class action suit in 2004 by a class of
Plaintiffs comprised of all littoral property owners along Lake
Erie's Ohio coast ("Merrill Class"). Sortino was, at all relevant
times, a littoral property owner along Lake Erie's Ohio coast;
however, the parties dispute whether Sortino was aware of the class
action suit prior to settlement. The suit sought mandamus and
declaratory relief, as well as the return of funds collected for
submerged land lease payments.

Mr. Sortino filed a timely notice of appeal and raises four
assignments of error for review. The Appellees have raised one
cross-assignment of error for review.

The Appellees' cross-assignment of error challenges the trial
court's consideration of the merits of Sortino's arguments for not
being bound by the Merrill Class settlement agreement. The
Appellees claim that Sortino's Erie Action is an impermissible
collateral attack on the settlement in Merrill. They argue that, as
a class member in that case, Sortino is precluded by the doctrines
of res judicata and waiver from challenging the settlement.

According to the Appellate Court's Opinion, the trial court's
judgment entry addressing the merits of Sortino's attacks on the
Merrill class action proceedings provided a thorough analysis of
the process; however, it also addressed the merits of the arguments
made by Sortino. To the extent the trial court's entry addressed
matters outside of an examination of procedural due process, the
Appellees' cross-assignment of error has merit.

Mr. Sortino's first assignment of error states: The trial court
committed prejudicial error in determining that the court had
subject matter jurisdiction, as opposed to the Court of Claims, in
order to approve a settlement in which the State of Ohio paid
monetary funds to a large number of the Class Members to settle the
claim asserting an unconstitutional taking of their property, based
merely upon the fact that the parties were not seeking damages in
their Amended Complaint.

Judge Timothy P. Cannon, writing for the Panel, says that the fact
that the parties agreed to enter into a settlement rather than
litigate the claims does not change the fact that the suit was
brought seeking equitable relief, and Sortino points to no case law
establishing that a court is divested of subject-matter
jurisdiction after seeking the equitable remedies allowing the
common pleas court to exercise jurisdiction. Judge Cannon holds
that Sortino's first assignment of error is without merit.

Mr. Sortino's second and third assignments of error challenge the
certification of the class under Civ.R. 23(B)(2), the subsequent
notification requirements, and the binding nature of the settlement
without an opt-out option. He argues that the class should have
been recertified under Civ.R. 23(B)(3), which requires additional
notice and opt-out alternatives, once a monetary award was included
in the settlement. While Sortino argues that the Civ.R. 23(B)(2)
certification and binding nature of the settlement violate his
right to substantive due process, these challenges relate to the
procedures and determinations made by the trial court in the
Merrill class action settlement, which was not appealed. Therefore,
a review of Sortino's second and third assignments of error are
reviewable in the present appeal only to the extent of insuring
procedural due process.

Judge Cannon notes that Sortino admits the initial determination to
certify the class under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) was correct. He provides no
case law or justification supporting the principal that a trial
court must reconsider its certification for a second time based on
the terms of a settlement. The trial court ordered the parties to
submit briefs on the issue of class certification. It considered
the certification issue and concluded -- based on the relief sought
by the Merrill Class in their complaint -- that certification under
Civ.R. 23(B)(2) was appropriate.

The Appellate Court finds no error or defect in the procedure used
by the trial court in reaching that conclusion. Therefore, the
alternative means of providing notice and requirement to allow
class members to opt-out is inapplicable to the present matter, and
the Civ.R. 23(B)(2) certification was procedurally sufficient.
Because the certification under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) was sufficient,
Sortino is bound by the terms of the settlement and prohibited from
bringing future actions against appellees based on the settled
claims. Hence, Sortino's second and third assignments of error are
without merit.

Mr. Sortino's fourth assignment of error challenges the trial
court's finding that, as a result of him being included in the
Merrill class, he was bound by the terms of the settlement
agreement and therefore in contempt for filing the Erie Action.

Judge Cannon says that once again, the class certification and
determination of class members in the Merrill case was not
appealed. Further, Sortino admits that he was a member of the class
in Merrill. His only challenge is to the determination of class
designation under Civ.R. 23 for purposes of the appropriate notice
requirements, which are not reviewable outside of direct appeal.
Judge Cannon opines that the trial court correctly determined that
Sortino was a member of the Civ.R. 23(B)(2) certified Merrill
class. Therefore, he was bound by the prohibition against bringing
future actions, and he was in contempt of the settlement agreement
by filing the Erie Action. Hence, Sortino's fourth assignment of
error is without merit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yajvjqye from Leagle.com.

James F. Lang -- jlang@calfee.com -- Fritz E. Berckmueller --
fberckmueller@calfee.com -- and Lindsey E. Sacher --
lsacher@calfee.com -- Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., The Calfee
Building, at 1405 East Sixth Street, in Cleveland, Ohio (For
Plaintiffs-Appellees).

Homer S. Taft, at 20220 Center Ridge Road, P.O. Box 16216, in Rocky
River, Ohio (Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee).

L. Scot Duncan -- scotduncan@alum.mit.edu -- at 1530 Willow Drive,
in Sandusky, Ohio (Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee and for
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee Darla Duncan).

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, at 30 East
Broad Street, in Columbus, Ohio; Anne Marie Sferra --
asferra@bricker.com -- and Daniel C. Gibson -- dgibson@bricker.com
-- Bricker & Eckler, LLP, at 100 South Third Street, in Columbus,
Ohio (For Defendants-Appellees).

Neil S. Kagan, at 213 West Liberty Street, in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Peter A. Precario -- precariolaw@aol.com -- at 2 Miranova Place, in
Columbus, Ohio (For Intervening Defendants-Appellees).

Dennis E. Murray, Sr. -- dmj@murrayandmurray.com -- Margaret M.
Murray -- mmm@murrayandmurray.com -- and Donna J. Evans --
dae@murrayandmurray.com -- Murray & Murray Co., LPA, at 111 East
Shoreline Drive, in Sandusky, Ohio (For Appellant).


OISHII SUSHI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Villegas Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL MEJIAS VILLEJAS; and DIONICIO TEMPLOS, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OISHII
SUSHI JAPANESE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a/ Oishii Sushi; Kevin "Doe";
and Cindy "Doe", Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06253 (Dec. 24, 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 delivery men and
sushi sauce makers.

Oishii Sushi Japanese Restaurant Inc. operates a sushi restaurant.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32 nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


OLIVER CABELL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oliver Cabell, Inc.
The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Oliver Cabell, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10978 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Oliver Cabell Inc. -- https://olivercabell.com/ -- is an
independent footwear brand that designs, manufactures, and sells
apparels and accessories. The Company offers bags and other
accessories.[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


P&B INTERMODAL: Smith Seeks Conditional Cert. of Mechanics Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, on Behalf
of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. P&B INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-03618-B (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a
collective action defined as:

   "all hourly paid mechanics and/or mechanic assistants who are
   and/or were employed by P&B Intermodal Services, LLC at any
   and all times during the time period of three years preceding
   the date of this Order to the date of this Order who
   perform(ed) work for the Defendant at its facility in
   Mesquite, Texas and also receive(d) pay labeled as
   "incentives" in their earnings statements."

The Plaintiff files this motion to conditionally certify a
collective action and to issue notice pursuant to the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. The
Plaintiff requests such other and further relief to which he may be
justly entitled, says the complaint.

Founded in 1975, P&B Intermodal has been servicing the
transportation industry. P&B Intermodal Services is a leading
provider of container, chassis, spotter, lift equipment and trailer
maintenance and repair services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
collective action dated Dec. 27, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37TvxOc at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 251-4157
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Rokita Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ROKITA v. JOHN
WETZEL, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00186-SLH-KAP (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
inmates pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

John Edward Wetzel is the current Pennsylvania Secretary of
Corrections.

Mark C. Rokita Jr. is an inmate at SCI Houtzdale. He filed a
section 1983 complaint challenging medical treatment deprivation
that he says would no doubt affect an entire class of thousands of
inmates in the state of Pennsylvania.

According to Mr. Rokita, his complaint asserts medical treatment
for a prevalent disorder recognized by the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
declared a disease that needs just treatment.  The plaintiff
request only injunctive relief i.e. that treatment be available for
inmates (not just the inmates whose inception was on or before
2019), notes the complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 23,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ruuagJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

PEOPLEMEDIA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PeopleMedia Inc. The
case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PeopleMedia Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10982 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

People Media, Inc. -- https://www.peoplemedia.com/ -- provides
Internet based services. The Company owns and operates dating,
urban brands, and romance websites for singles and households.[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


PINTEREST INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Pinterest,
Inc. ("Pinterest" or "the Company") (NYSE: PINS) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 16,
2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 22, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2X3cZoH to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Pinterest was approaching the maximum
capacity of its addressable market in the United States. This
market saturation greatly slowed down the Company's potential to
increase its average revenue per user. The Company also suffered a
greater risk of losing advertising revenue. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Pinterest, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

View original
content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-action-notice-the-schall-law-firm-announces-the-filing-of-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-pinterest-inc-and-encourages-investors-with-losses-in-excess-of-100-000-to-contact-the-firm-301198142.html
[GN]


PIT STOP: Civil Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA DARDAR CIVIL, v.
PIT STOP EATERY OF HOUMA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01605-SSV-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certify the following collective:

      "all persons who are currently or were formerly employed
      by Pit Stop Eatery of Houma, LLC at either or
      both Pit Stop locations at 8045 Park Avenue, Houma,
      Louisiana 70364, and 6613 West Park Avenue, Houma,
      Louisiana 70364, and who were not paid the mandatory rate
      of time-and-a-half for all hours worked above 40 hours in
      a week at any time since three years before the date of
      the Order conditionally certifying the collective through
      the final disposition of this case";

   2. approving the proposed notices;

   3. approving the notice plan;

   4. approving a three-year statute of limitations for the
      collective, to be calculated from the date the Court
      enters the Order conditionally certifying the collective;

   5. directing the Defendant to disclose the contact
      information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs, including
      names, last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-
      mail addresses, within days of the Order conditionally
      certifying the collective;

   6. authorizing immediate notice to the potential opt-in
      plaintiffs by U.S. Mail, text message, and/or e-mail, and
      by posting at the Defendant’s restaurants;

   7. authorizing follow-up notice thirty days following the
      initial notice by U.S. Mail, text message, and/or e-mail
      only to any potential opt-in plaintiffs who have not
      already opted in;

   8. permitting a 90-day opt-in period, beginning from the date
      notice is first sent to the potential opt-in plaintiffs;
      and

   9. permitting all potential opt-in plaintiffs to execute
      consent forms electronically.

The Defendant is doing business in the eating places industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aU2BYt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy Bergeron, Jr., Esq.
          Eulis Simien, Jr., Esq.
          SIMIEN & SIMIEN, L.L.C.
          7908 Wrenwood Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 932-9221
          Facsimile: (225) 932-9286

PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Partly Grants Edwards' Bid for Protective Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants in part
and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Compel and the
Plaintiffs' competing Motion for Protective Order in the lawsuit
styled CORY EDWARDS, et al., On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho).

The lawsuit is a putative hybrid Rule 23 class and 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) collective action. The Plaintiffs, who were the
Defendants' pizza-delivery drivers, assert violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and various states' laws. Broadly speaking, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants underpaid them and/or failed
to adequately reimburse them for certain expenses each incurred
during their employment.

On May 15, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a Section 216(b)
FLSA collective action. Notice was sent to 3,846 prospective
plaintiffs and, to date, roughly 700 individuals have consented to
join the action. The Plaintiffs have not yet moved for an order
certifying their state law claims as Rule 23 class actions.
Discovery is ongoing.

On Dec. 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel, seeking
an order from the Court compelling the Plaintiffs to respond to the
questionnaire it intends to send out. They contend the information
is necessary as they prepare to defend against the Plaintiffs
inevitable motion for class certification -- and for their defenses
generally in the case.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective
Order.  In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to avoid answering the
Defendant's questionnaire.  They argue it is burdensome and that
the information Defendants seek is irrelevant.  Said differently,
the motions are mirror opposites of each other.  Each motion
centers around the questionnaire; the Defendants seek to compel
responses to the questionnaire; the Plaintiffs seek an order
shielding them from responding.

In their Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs claim the
Defendants did not reimburse them based on a reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incurred while completing
deliveries, and that doing so caused their wages to fall below the
required minimum. According to the Plaintiffs, they are entitled to
reimbursement for their expenses, which allegedly include to
depreciation, insurance, taxes, license fees, registration fees,
financing costs, gasoline, maintenance, repairs and parts.

In order to ascertain what these potential expenses could be, the
Defendants proposed sending out a simple questionnaire to the party
Plaintiffs. The questionnaire contains six questions seeking:
Employment Information, General Automotive Information, Automobile
Insurance, Service and Repair Information, Bankruptcy and
Identifying Information.

Because the questionnaire seeks information related to the
Defendants' claim or defense -- specifically its efforts to
determine if it underpaid its drivers, what those driver's
reasonable expenses were, and/or what rate, if any, they should be
reimbursed at -- the Court finds it is appropriate. The Defendants
have met their burden in showing the initial relevance of these
questions.

The Court turns next to the Plaintiffs efforts to shield themselves
from the Defendants' questionnaires. While the Plaintiffs have
specific objections to certain questions -- some of which the Court
shares -- and hope to see the number of participants, who must
respond pared down -- again, a proposition with which the Court
agrees -- their main argument against the Defendants' Motion to
Compel and in support of their own Motion for Protective Order is
that the information is irrelevant because there is only one way
for the Defendants to reimburse the Plaintiffs.

In essence, Chief District Judge David C. Nye notes, the Plaintiffs
are trying to direct discovery in the case using a framework that
the Court has yet to adopt -- Hatmaker v. PJ Ohio, LLC. They also
rely on the United States Department of Labor Handbook and claim
the Court should give it deference when determining this question.
Notably, the DOL Handbook outlines that there are two methods (the
same as above) for calculating vehicle costs and suggests in the
absence of the first (i.e. in a situation where the company did not
track expenses), the second is the correct choice.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs correctly note that the DOL
Handbook is not binding on the Court. While it might not be the
Plaintiffs' preferred methodology, caselaw supports the Defendants'
position that they have the right to argue they reasonably
approximated the Plaintiffs' expenses without tracking their actual
expenses, Judge Nye opines. Again, whether it is right or wrong
remains to be seen, but at this point, discovery regarding this
defense is fair and appropriate.  

In sum, the Court finds the discovery the Defendants' propound is,
in general, relevant under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and will compel the Plaintiffs to respond under Rule 37
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the Court has
outlined a more tailored questionnaire that will go out to a more
limited audience, it ultimately finds that the discovery sought is
relevant and that the Plaintiffs should be compelled to respond.

The Court says it understands the underpinnings of the Plaintiffs'
argument. While Hatmaker (and other cases) and the DOL handbook
support the Plaintiffs' interpretation, Blose v. Jarinc, Ltd.,
No.1:18-CV-02184-RM-SKC (D. Colo. Sept. 14, 2020), Kennedy v.
Mountainside Pizza, Inc., No.19-CV-01199-CMA-STV (D. Colo. Aug. 26,
2020) (and other cases), as well as the DOL Letter support the
Defendants' position. It is clearly an open question, and different
courts have come to differing conclusions regarding the appropriate
standard for reimbursing delivery drivers. Accordingly, the Court
cannot say that the Defendants' position, and, in turn, their
discovery in support of that argument, is irrelevant.

The Defendants are entitled to engage in discovery in order to
defend against the Plaintiffs' claims and in support of their
argument that they can approximate the Plaintiffs' expenses, Judge
Nye says. The Defendants did not keep records, true. But that does
not preclude them from asking the Plaintiffs if they kept records.
He does not know how helpful the questionnaire responses will be or
what standard it will ultimately apply in the case, but it is a
discovery question. Broad discovery parameters necessarily mean
that some endeavors may yield better results than others, but that
is part and parcel to litigation. Fairness dictates both sides have
an opportunity to glean information regarding their claims and
defenses.

The Defendants have persuaded the Court and their Motion to Compel
will be granted to the extent the Court will allow such discovery.
That said, the Motion will be denied to the extent that some of the
questions in the questionnaire are unhelpful. Additionally, the
Court is cognizant of the purpose of class action suits and finds a
representative sampling is appropriate in this case. These
considerations strike a fair balance between the parties' competing
positions. Accordingly, certain questions, including those seeking
General Automotive Information and Bankruptcy, will be stricken
prior to sending the questionnaire to 200 randomly selected
Plaintiffs.

In turn, while the Court finds that the Plaintiffs should be
shielded from some of the Defendants' questions (and that a
sampling is appropriate), the Plaintiffs opted in to the suit and
are subject to the same rules of discovery as plaintiffs in other
cases. They cannot reasonably rely on Hatmaker as the "operative
legal standard" and force the Defendants to take a certain position
when there is caselaw to the contrary, Judge Nye opines.

According to Judge Nye, the Defendants' discovery is broad, but not
impermissibly so. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective
Order is denied to the extent the Court will allow the
questionnaire to be sent out, but granted in that the Court has
stricken certain irrelevant questions and limited the overall
number of questionnaires.

In sum, the Defendants will provide the Plaintiffs with the list of
the 150 disputed Plaintiffs. The parties will meet and confer and
resolve the discrepancies. The Defendants will remove the questions
outlined. The parties will then meet and confer and randomly select
200 Plaintiffs and send them the questionnaire. These tasks should
be completed by Jan. 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs, who receive the
questionnaire, will have 45 days from the date they receive the
questionnaire to complete and return it to the Defense counsel. The
Defense counsel will provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with copies of
all the responses counsel receives.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Compel is granted in part
and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order is
granted in part and denied in part. The Parties' remaining
Motions/Notices that have not already been addressed are granted.
The stay previously imposed in the case is lifted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9pbktga from
Leagle.com.


PLAID INC: PNC Financial Sues Over Alleged Trademark Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group has filed a lawsuit against Plaid in
U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania alleging trademark
counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising and other
wrongdoing for reputedly using PNC's name and logo in Plaid apps.

"PNC brings this action because defendant Plaid Inc. has sought to
obtain trust and consumer confidence from consumers by
intentionally designing user interfaces to misleadingly suggest
that Plaid was affiliated or associated with, or sponsored by,
PNC," according to the lawsuit.

The complaint claims that Plaid Inc. has created a user interface
for financial apps without permission that harnessed the bank's
trademark, a PNC logo and PNC's color scheme.

Plaid allegedly used those elements to "replicate a genuine PNC
login page in order to mislead consumers into believing they are
entering their sensitive personal and financial information in
PNC's trusted and secure platform or a platform that is otherwise
associated or affiliated with, or sponsored by, PNC," according to
the complaint.

The suit also claims that when PNC users log into their accounts
via Plaid apps, Plaid "deceptively and fraudulently collects,
stores, aggregates, and monetizes consumers' sensitive financial
credentials and transactions in violation of consumers' privacy,
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and other laws." PNC said those
allegations are subject to a separate consumer class-action lawsuit
called Cottle v. Plaid.

PNC is asking the court to stop Plaid from any alleged copyright
infringement, and to force Plaid to run an ad campaign
disassociating PNC from Plaid apps. The bank also wants up to $2
million in statutory damages for "each type of service sold,
offered for sale, or distributed by defendant under the registered
PNC [trademarks]."

Additionally, the bank wants the court to order Plaid to pay
"actual damages in an amount to be determined (but exceeding
$75,000), caused by the foregoing acts, and [a tripling of] such
damages" in accordance with applicable laws. Plus, PNC wants Plaid
to pay "punitive damages in an amount to be determined," as well
covering the bank's legal expenses in the case.

A Plaid spokesperson told PYMNTS that the company denies PNC's
allegations and does not sell or rent consumer information. The
spokesperson added that Plaid makes clear its role in allowing
consumers to share information from their financial accounts with
the programs they select.

"We dispute PNC's allegations -- Plaid uses logos as references to
make sure users pick and link the right bank, not as trademarks,"
the person said. "We previously notified PNC about multiple changes
that we already made that nullify any purported concerns. We will
vigorously defend this case and continue to work with thousands of
banks to ensure that consumers have access to the financial apps
they depend on for their financial well-being."

The lawsuit comes at a time when a judge has set a June 28, 2021,
start date for a trial to consider a U.S. Justice Department
antitrust challenge to Visa's planned $5.3 billion purchase of
Plaid, according to a Law360 report. [GN]


POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 23, 2020, that
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc.
Securities Litigation with Case No. 2:18-cv-00510, has been
dismissed.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP.  

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW.  

On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi
cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities
Litigation with Case No. 2:18-cv-00510.  The gravamen of the
consolidated complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation
was that defendants made statements or disseminated information to
the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements
or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder, specifically that the
defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent
applications while touting the unique nature of the Company’s
technology and its effectiveness.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply
to the opposition on September 13, 2019.  

Following a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the Court
issued an order on November 22, 2020, dismissing the complaint in
the Consolidated Securities Litigation with prejudice.

PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.

PORTAGE COUNTY, OH: Ohio App. Flips Dismissal of Hughes Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio reverses the trial court's decision
dismissing the class action lawsuit entitled JANE L. HUGHES,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JANE L. HUGHES REVOCABLE TRUST
DATED MARCH 23, 1994, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PORTAGE
COUNTY, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 2020-P-0012 (Ohio
App.).

The Appellants, Jane L. Hughes, individually and as trustee for the
Jane L. Hughes revocable trust dated March 23, 1994; Warner L.
Hughes, individually and as trustee for the Warner L. Hughes
revocable trust dated March 23, 1994; and Kenneth T. Hughes,
individually and as trustee for the Kenneth T. Hughes revocable
trust dated Aug. 10, 2007, appeal the trial court's decision
dismissing their class action complaint against Portage County,
Ohio, and overruling their motion to amend their complaint as
moot.

The Hughes' May 2019 class action complaint alleges that the county
incorrectly assessed and overcharged them an excessive amount of
property taxes on their respective agricultural properties as a
result of the state's annual land tax tables. The Hughes allege
that they, as well as similarly situated property owners, were
overcharged, but that they lack any means to challenge the unlawful
values set forth in the state's current agricultural use value
tables. The Hughes' complaint labels their causes of action as
equitable disgorgement, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment.

Portage County filed an answer and a motion to dismiss on the same
date arguing three bases for dismissal. It claims: [1] the trial
court lacks jurisdiction since the Hughes failed to name a
necessary and indispensable party; [2] the Hughes failed to exhaust
their administrative remedies; and [3] the Hughes' request for
injunctive relief would essentially stay the Tax Commissioner's
determination, which is prohibited by law.

In response, the Hughes sought leave to amend their complaint which
the County opposed. The County's opposition reiterates the merits
of their motion to dismiss but does not allege any resulting
prejudice from the filing of an amended complaint. In January 2020,
the trial court granted the County's motion to dismiss and denied
the Hughes' leave to file an amended complaint as moot.

Judge Thomas R. Wright, writing for the Panel, notes that according
to the docket, discovery had not commenced, and the trial court had
yet to even hold a pretrial or status conference. Moreover, there
is no record of the Hughes making dilatory filings, excessive
amended pleadings, or any prejudice to the county had leave been
granted, and it does not allege any.

Further, Judge Wright opines, the Hughes' motion for leave states
that its amended complaint remedies the issues that the county
pointed out in its dismissal motion, and the trial court does not
find that the Hughes' amended complaint would not have cured the
defects identified in the county's motion. Instead, based on its
conclusion that the leave to amend was moot, it appears likely that
the trial court ruled on the merits of the motion to dismiss
without considering the substance of the proposed amended
complaint.

In light of the trial court's conclusion that review of the amended
complaint was moot or hypothetical, it is evident the trial court
did not reach the merits and assess whether the amended complaint
cures the alleged defects, Judge Wright says.

Consequently, the Appellate Court finds no rational reason for the
trial court's denial of the motion to amend, and its denial of
Hughes' motion to amend their complaint constitutes an abuse of
discretion. The decision neither comports with reason nor the
record. Moreover, because the trial court did not reach the merits
of the county's motion to dismiss and whether the amended complaint
cures the alleged deficiencies, the Appellate Court will not do so
for the first time on appeal.

Thus, the Hughes' sole assigned error has merit, and the trial
court's decision granting the County's motion to dismiss and
denying the Hughes' motion for leave to amend their complaint is
reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court should grant the
Hughes' motion for leave to amend, and thereafter, the County may
renew its motion to dismiss based on the Hughes' amended complaint,
if it so chooses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y854rjm3 from Leagle.com.

Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli
-- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., at 60
South Park Place, in Painesville, Ohio; Robert McNamara, McNamara,
Demczyk Co., L.P.A., 12370 Cleveland Avenue NW, Uniontown, Ohio;
and Benjamin Calkins, The Calkins Law Firm, at 100 North Main
Street, in Chagrin Falls, Ohio (For Plaintiffs-Appellants).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Christopher J.
Meduri, Assistant Prosecutor, at 241 South Chestnut Street, in
Ravenna, Ohio (For Defendant-Appellee).


POST HOLDINGS: Still Defends Egg Products Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that Michael Foods, Inc.
(MFI) continues to defend a class action suit by opt-out plaintiffs
related to egg products.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against MFI, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and approximately 20 other defendants
(producers of shell eggs and egg products and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated
and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The cases involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class
of direct purchasers of shell eggs (the direct purchaser class);
(ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products (opt-out
plaintiffs); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs (indirect
purchaser plaintiffs).

Resolution of claims: To date, MFI has resolved the following
claims, including all class claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI
settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser
class for a payment of $75.0, which was approved by the district
court in December 2017; (ii) in January 2017, MFI settled all
claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell
egg purchases on confidential terms; (iii) in June 2018, MFI
settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser
plaintiffs on confidential terms; and (iv) between June 2019 and
September 2019, MFI individually settled on confidential terms egg
product opt-out claims asserted against it by four separate opt-out
plaintiffs. MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter,
and no settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI.

Remaining portion of the cases: MFI remains a defendant only with
respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg
products by three opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had
granted summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products
purchases by such opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial
proceedings. Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the claims, which was denied in June 2019. The
remaining opt-out plaintiffs have not yet been assigned trial
dates.

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Potter Suit in Florida Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
PotNetwork Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Potter v.
PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., Diamond CBD, Inc., and First Capital
Venture Co., CASE NO.: 19-24017-CV-SCOLA, US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, has been dismissed.

Plaintiff Potter alleged that she purchased certain products from
Diamond CBD that contained levels of CBD that were less than the
amount stated on the packaging and south class action status.

The Company and its subsidiaries settled the matter at mediation on
July 14, 2020. The parties completed the final documentation of the
settlement and the case was dismissed on August 27, 2020.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement the Company agreed to issue a
$10 voucher to purported class members, pay the named plaintiff
$5,000 and pay the law firms that brought the suit $200,000 in
legal fees to be paid over 30 months, secured by a pledge of shares
of the Company's common stock.

PotNetwork Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides online breaking news
and videos straight from the cannabis industry. PotNetwork Holdings
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in  Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
class action suit initiated by Jerome Treadwell is still stayed.

In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit
without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019.

The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.

In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss. In January 2020, the Company moved
for reconsideration of the court's order denying the motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case pending the
Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony
Healthcare on a legal question that would be potentially
dispositive in this matter.

In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay. In April 2020, the court
granted the Company's motion to stay and stayed the case pending
the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony
Healthcare.

In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the court granted the
parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60
days. The court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement
conference with the Magistrate Judge, and scheduling is in
progress.

Power Solutions said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter or meaningfully quantify how the
final resolution of this matter may impact its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.

PREFFERED POPCORN: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Preferred Popcorn,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Preferred Popcorn, L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10985 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Preferred Popcorn LLC -- https://www.preferredpopcorn.com/ -- is
headquartered near Chapman in the fertile Platte River valley of
south central Nebraska. This 100% farmer-owned company grows and
processes premium popcorn.[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


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Proctor & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Proctor & Gamble
Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-10974 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://ph.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James
Gamble.[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



PROPHASE LABS: TCPA Class Suit Against TK Supplements Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company settled
the class action suit filed against TK Supplements, Inc., with the
plaintiff and agreed to pay $5,000 in exchange for a customary
release.

On November 12, 2019, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against TK
Supplements, Inc., one of the company's wholly-owned subsidiaries
(TK Sub), asserting two class action claims and alleging that, by
sending plaintiff text messages to his cellular telephone number
without his prior express consent and notwithstanding its listing
on the Do No Call Registry, TK Sub violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(c)(5).

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of (i) all residents within
the United States to whom TK Sub or its agents sent text messages
to the person's cellular telephone number in the past four years
and (ii) all residents within the United States to whom TK Sub or
its agents placed two or more telemarketing phone calls to the
person's residential telephone number that was listed on the Do Not
Call Registry in the past four years.

On August 26, 2020, the company settled this matter with the
plaintiff and agreed to pay $5,000 in exchange for a customary
release.

ProPhase Labs, Inc. a manufacturing and marketing company with deep
experience with OTC consumer healthcare products and dietary
supplements. The company is engaged in the research, development,
manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of OTC consumer
healthcare products and dietary supplements in the United States.
The company is based in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Related Suit Underway in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to its 401(k) Plan.

On September 17, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against PTC, the Investment Committee for the
PTC Inc. 401(k) Plan, and the Board of Directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging claims
regarding the Plan.

The case alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting
and retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees
and costs than other available investment options, causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees and
suffer lower returns on their investments, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from September 17, 2014 through the date of any
judgment.

PTC has not yet responded to the complaint, but the company
believes that defenses are available to us and will defend the case
vigorously.

PTC said, "We are currently unable to reasonably estimate what
effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

PTC Inc. develops and delivers software products and solutions
worldwide. It operates in two segments, Software Products and
Services. The Company was formerly known as Parametric Technology
Corporation and changed its name to PTC Inc. in January 2013. PTC
Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Needham,
Massachusetts.

PURDUE PHARMA: Cerro Gordo County May Join Opioid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jared McNett, writing for Globe Gazette, reports that in November
2019, Cerro Gordo County opted out of a federal class-action case
in Cleveland that would push manufacturers and distributors of
opioids to pay out for the ongoing crisis that has wracked America
and was responsible for as many as 47,000 deaths in 2018.

At the time, County Attorney Carlyle Dalen acknowledged that the
opioid crisis has been "a big topic throughout our country" but
also mentioned that staying in any one class-action case could
exclude the county from other benefits. Just two months prior to
that, in September, OxyContin-manufacturer Purdue Pharma
tentatively agreed to pay up to $12 billion in lawsuit settlements
related to its role in America's opioid crisis.

Now, a little more than a year later, Cerro Gordo County might be
reconsidering getting involved in some of these lawsuits.

Dalen said that after the first of the year the county could start
having discussions about joining a class-action lawsuit which now
has more than 40 Iowa counties signed onto it and is nearing a
settlement agreement.

However, Dalen did make it clear again that signing on to any one
suit could then preclude any future action the county might want to
join involving opioid damages.

In the region, Cerro Gordo County isn't alone in weighing such a
decision.

Earlier in December, Hancock County Attorney Blake Norman addressed
supervisors there about the class-action lawsuit as well as a
lawsuit filed by Iowa Attorney General Thomas Miller on behalf of
the State of Iowa against pharmaceutical companies for opioid
epidemics that have impacted counties in Iowa.

Norman told supervisors that if their county does not join this
lawsuit by possibly as early as late December, the suit could
proceed without Hancock County.

He said that the county does not have sufficient resources to
litigate this matter on its own.

Norman estimated that the attorney fees would be about 25 percent
of any overall damage award plus various lawsuit costs, which would
be divided among the participating counties.

He recommended that the county join the lawsuit against companies
that pushed addictive opioid drugs. He noted that if the case
against the drug companies fails, counties will not be charged with
costs falling on the attorney firms.

At the start of December, the Associated Press reported that the
$200 million that Purdue Pharma agree to make immediately available
to those damaged by its painkiller, OxyContin, still hadn't been
spent.

According to reporter Geoff Mulvihill, the money isn't being held
up by the company but lawyers representing all of the various
entities who sued the company.

"The main disagreement is between nearly 3,000 local governments
and advocates for those hurt by opioids," Mulvihill wrote. He then
went on to report that advocates want the money to go toward
emergency services and nonprofits dealing with addiction while
state attorneys general are dubious about how effective that would
be.

"You see the state AGs come in and block the money, and you're not
understanding why," Jill Cichowicz, who lost her twin brother to an
overdose and sits on a committee advocating for victims in Purdue's
bankruptcy case, said in the story. "We're all baffled."

In 2017, there were 206 opioid-related deaths in the state of
Iowa.

A year later, that number dropped to 137. [GN]


RB HEALTH: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RB Health (US) LLC.
The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US) LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10972 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

RB Health (US) LLC -- https://www.rb.com/offices/usa/ -- is located
in Parsippany, New Jersey and is part of the home health care
services industry.[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


RCN TELECOM: Class Cert. Bid Terminated Pending Parties' Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE GRILLO and
CHRISTIAN REID, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-08609-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson
entered an order that:

   --  the return date of the class certification motion is
       adjourned from January 19, 2021 to April 19, 2021;

   --  the Defendants shall file their opposition to the class
       certification motion on or before March 8, 2021;

   --  the Plaintiffs shall file any reply papers in further
       support of the class certification motion on or before
       April 7, 2021;

   --  because it may be necessary to further adjourn the
       briefing schedule and return date of the class
       certification motion in light of the progress of class-
       related discovery, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants each
       reserve their respective rights to request such further
       adjournments; and

   --  the motion for class certification is administratively
       terminated pending the parties' briefing, and it will be
       relisted upon the completion of briefing.

RCN Telecom provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
broadband Internet, digital cable television, fixed line telephony,
and mobile telephony services.

A copy of  the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/383n0Zr at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951

The Defendants are represented by:

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          Todd L. Schleifstein, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          Facsimile: (973) 301-8410

RCN TELECOM: Court Temporarily Terminates Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REID v. RCN TELECOM
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-12571 (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Freda L. Wolfson entered an order temporarily terminating the
motion to certify class pursuant to order dated December 28, 2020.

The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud.

RCN Telecom provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
broadband Internet, digital cable television, fixed line telephony,
and mobile telephony services.[CC]

REAL SOLUTIONS: Goldsmith Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY GOLDSMITH, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. REAL SOLUTIONS
REALTY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03989-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and approving the notice and
      consent form to be sent to the putative class members who
      are defined as:

      "all current and formerly non-exempt hourly employees who
      reported 40 or more hours worked in any workweek during
      the period of December 10, 2017 to the present;"

   2. directing the Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's
      entry of an order approving the Parties' notice packet, to
      provide to the Plaintiff's Counsel a list (in Microsoft
      Office Excel format) containing the names, last known
      addresses (including zip code), personal email addresses,
      and phone numbers, to the extent known and in the
      possession of the Defendant, of the putative class
      members; and

   3. directing the Plaintiff's Counsel to mail to the putative
      collective class members via First Class U.S. Mail within
      7 days of receiving the list. The putative collective
      class members shall have 60 days from the date the notice
      packet is mailed and emailed to return their Consent to
      join form and opt-in to this case.

Real Solutions specializes in real estate and homes for sale with
branch offices serving the greater Cleveland, Columbus and
Cincinnati.

A copy of the Parties' joint motion for conditional certification
dated Dec. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
http://bit.ly/3n0Jyy5at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, Oh 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alex S. Rodger, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 East Fourth St., 4th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: asrodger@strausstroy.com

RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red River Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Aeron
Averette v. Red River Bancshares.

The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August
28, 2020, in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana.

The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple
non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a
single item presented for payment, thereby resulting in the Bank
breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and
being unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all
account holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the
Bank within the applicable prescriptive period.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's
fees, and general and equitable relief for herself and the
purported class.

The Company and Bank deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend the matter.

Red River said, "At this early stage of the lawsuit, we cannot
determine the probability of a materially adverse result or
reasonably estimate the potential exposure, if any."

Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red
River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999
that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and
services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail
customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking
centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit
production office in Lafayette, Louisiana.

REGIONS BANK: Wins Bid to Dismiss Hodapp for Lack of Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL HODAPP, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No.
4:18CV1389 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and denied
as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint for Failure to State a Claim.

On Aug. 21, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant matter asserting
that the Defendant systematically failed to pay all wages,
including overtime wages, owed to her and other hourly employees
working at Defendant's retail branches in 16 states in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law, and Missouri common law.  The Plaintiff filed her Motion for
Conditional Certification of the Collective Action and
Court-Authorized Notice on Aug. 31, 2018.

Thereafter, the Parties stipulated to conditional certification and
notice was sent to the putative class on March 4, 2019.  Since the
conclusion of the notice period, the Parties had agreed to
participate in a mediation on Oct. 22, 2019, with mediator Fern H.
Singer in Birmingham, Alabama.  The Court stayed the matter so the
parties could participate in the mediation.

Prior to mediation, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend.  She
sought to add 10 of the Opt-in Plaintiffs as additional named
Plaintiffs and add Rule 23 claims under the wage and hour law
and/or common law of each state in which the additional named
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant.  The Plaintiff identified
these additional claims upon the completion of the FLSA notice
period when individuals from each of the 10 states at issue joined
the case.  The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend,
thereby adding 10 additional Plaintiffs who worked in Alabama,
Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Texas, Indiana, and Illinois.  The foreign-state claims allege
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and claims of unpaid wages
under the various state statutes.

The Defendant moves to dismiss these new claims under Rule 12(b)(2)
on the grounds that the Court lacks general personal jurisdiction
over Regions as it relates to the foreign-state law claims because
Missouri is not Regions' state of incorporation or principal place
of business; the Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over
Regions as it relates to the out-of-state claims because the
foreign-state law claims of out-of-state plaintiffs do not relate
to Regions' contacts in Missouri.

The Defendant is an Alabama state-chartered commercial bank that
maintains its corporate headquarters in Alabama.  Its parent
company is Regions Financial Corp., which is incorporated in the
state of Delaware with its principal place of business in Alabama.
As of Dec. 31, 2019, the Defendant operated 1,428 branches in 15
states across the country, with 56 branches in Missouri.  As of
March 25, 2020, the Defendant employed approximately 20,116
employees, with 457 of those employees working in Missouri.  Except
for the Plaintiff, the Out-of-State Plaintiffs all worked for
Regions at branches located outside of Missouri and seek relief
only for alleged hours worked outside of Missouri.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the out of state claims for lack of
jurisdiction.

Judge Autrey holds that because putative plaintiffs in an FLSA
collective action are required to opt in to the action, are
thereafter considered "party plaintiffs" to the action, and may
obtain relief on their individual claims in the action only by
actively participating as party plaintiffs, due process requires
that their alleged injuries "arise out of or relate to" the
Defendant's activities within the forum state--Missouri.

Because the due process requirement cannot be satisfied for
potential opt-in Plaintiffs who did not work at the Defendant
branch banks located in Missouri, the Court says it cannot exercise
specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant regarding the
FLSA claims the Plaintiff seeks to pursue here in their behalf.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has consented to personal
jurisdiction with regard to the newly named out of state Plaintiffs
or has waived its objection to the Court's personal jurisdiction.
She argues that the Defendant consented to personal jurisdiction
when it agreed to conditional certification for mediation purposes.
Judge Autrey opines that as the Defendant correctly argues, it did
not consent to personal jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of the
out of state Plaintiffs since at the time of the agreement, the out
of state Plaintiffs were not yet parties to the litigation.

Judge Autrey also opines that the Defendant has not waived its
personal jurisdiction challenge. The very basis of the motion to
dismiss challenges the Court's personal jurisdiction with respect
to the state law claims of the out of state Plaintiffs and seeks
dismissal solely of these claims.  The Defendant has taken no
action inconsistent with its motion to dismiss Counts V to XXVII.
In that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San
Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), applies, personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant does not exist.  As such, the
Plaintiff's pendant jurisdiction argument is moot.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Autrey concludes that the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is well taken
and is granted.  He denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.  Counts V through XXVII of
the First Amended Complaint are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydx49jjo from
Leagle.com.


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Restaurant
Brands International Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or the "Company")
(NYSE: QSR) securities during the period from April 29, 2019
through October 28, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
February 19, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation and headquartered in
Toronto, Ontario. It is one of the world's largest restaurant
chains with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes
restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. On
April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy designed
to improve performance within its Tim Hortons brand. Specifically,
the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on three key pillars:
restaurant experience; product excellence; and brand
communications. Then, on March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands
announced "Tims Rewards" - a new loyalty program for Tim Hortons
customers in Canada. Under the Tims Rewards program, customers
would be eligible for a free hot brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked
good after every seventh paid visit to a participating Tim Hortons
restaurant. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
United States.

The Class Period commences on April 29, 2019, when Restaurant
Brands filed its financial results for the first quarter ended
March 31, 2019 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported 0.5% system-wide
year-over-year sales growth for Tim Hortons on system-wide sales of
$1.547 billion. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, the defendants repeatedly touted the implementation and
execution of Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan and Tims
Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of Restaurant Brands touting
the benefits of these initiatives, the Company completed two stock
offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5, 2019,
collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to
insiders.

However, on October 29, 2019, the truth about Restaurant Brands'
execution of its Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty
program was revealed when the Company announced disappointing
financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019.
Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported a 0.1% system-wide
year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortons -- representing a 1.4%
same-store sales decline -- on system-wide sales of $1.774
billion.

Following this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock
declined $2.59 per share, or approximately 3.8%, from a close of
$68.45 per share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share
on October 28, 2019.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, the defendants'
statements about Restaurant Brands' business, operations, and
prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brand securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of February 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR)
between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Restaurant
Brands investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Restaurant Brands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1977.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Restaurant Brands' "Winning Together Plan" was failing to
generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim
Hortons brand; (2) the "Tims Rewards" loyalty program was not
generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic
was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Restaurant Brands' business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1977.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Backdoor Commission Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermina Paull, writing for the deep dive, reports that as
Robinhood's fall from grace continues, it appears that the popular
trading app has been hit with yet another grievance after a San
Francisco federal court filed a class action lawsuit for failing to
inform users about back-door commission fees.

Atop a similar complaint filed by securities regulators in
Massachusetts regarding the manipulation of inexperienced
investors, which was then followed by a $65 million SEC settlement
that alleged Robinhood failed to disclose its revenue sources to
customers, the trading app is now facing a class action lawsuit in
San Francisco that claims the distraught company failed to notify
its users it was selling their stock orders to trading firms and
then charging them back-door commission fees.

Although Robinhood proclaimed on its platform that all trading is
"commission free," it did not disclose its extensive reliance on
"payment for order flow," where it collected money from market
makers in exchange for executing trades. Those fees that were
initially passed onto market makers were then transferred to
Robinhood's clients via inferior execution quality - which is the
price at which the market orders were executed, alleges the suit.

Robinhood has yet to respond to the suit, but following its
previous settlement with the SEC, the trading app agreed to
monitoring by an outside consultant in order to ensure it is
following the rules. Although Robinhood agreed to the settlement,
it did not deny or confirm the regulator's claims, only noting that
it has turned a new leaf and is now fully transparent with its
customers. [GN]


RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT GAMBRELL, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. RUMPKE TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under section
      216(b) against the Defendant, on behalf of:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt welders of the
      Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in
      any workweek during the three years preceding the filing
      of this Motion and continuing through the final
      disposition of this case ("Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" or
      "Putative Class Members");

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      FLSA claims is sent by regular mail and email to the
      Putative Class Members;

   3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;

   4. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an
      order granting conditional certification, a roster of all
      persons who fit the definition above (the "Potential Opt-
      In Plaintiffs") that includes their full names, their
      dates of employment, job titles, locations worked, their
      last known home addresses, and their personal email
      addresses; and

   5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
      within 14 days of receipt of the roster using the
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses;

Rumpke operates as a environmentally friendly waste disposal
solutions and recycling options. The Company provides office,
construction, industrial, recycling solutions and disposal
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hw2Jyx
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

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

SACHS ELECTRIC: Gets Partial Summary Judgment in Sachs Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting a
motion for judgment on pleadings in the class action lawsuit
captioned as WILLIAM DURHAM, et al., v. SACHS ELECTRIC COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 5:18-cv-04506-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

On June 15, 2020, Sachs filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Two weeks later, Sachs filed a partial motion for
summary judgment. At the time of the hearing on the two motions,
Durham's motion for class certification was pending. Based on the
parties' agreement, the Court deferred issuance of a class
certification order until it resolved the two instant motions.

This action arises out of the Plaintiff Durham and the proposed
class members' employment by Defendant Sachs at the California
Flats Solar Project. On July 25, 2018, Durham filed a wage and
hours class action as an individual and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated (collectively, "workers"). Durham seeks
to bring class claims for failure to pay wages for hours worked;
wage statement and record-keeping violations; and failure to pay
waiting time wages under the California Labor Code and the
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Durham was employed at the Project from July 2016 to September
2017. Durham alleges that he was not compensated for all hours
worked. In particular, Durham claims that Sachs failed to
compensate him for buggy time from the parking lot to the
installation site and during meal periods.

Sachs and co-defendant McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. are
Missouri corporations involved in the construction and development
of photovoltaic solar projects.

In his order dated Dec. 23, 2020, a copy of which is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3nVneHhat no extra charge, Judge
Freeman:

   1. granted Sachs' motion for judgment on the pleadings;

   2. dismissed Durham's claims to the extent they are derived
      from meal period violations;

   3. granted Sachs' motion for partial summary judgment of the
      following facts: it is not relevant to whether Durham was
      subject to Sachs' control during a meal period:

      a. whether Durham was able to leave the Project; and

      b. whether Sachs allowed Durham to ride in a buggy to
         return to the parking; and

   4. denied Sachs' motion for partial summary judgment that
      Durham's buggy time claim is barred by a collective
      bargaining agreement (CBA).[CC]


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Brown, et al. Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BROWN et al., v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION; and GWENAEL BUSNEL,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the claims of Plaintiffs and class
members in this action for management pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of:

   "all persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
   residential properties with private wells in the Private Well
   Property Owners Class Geographic Area or residential
   properties in the Merrimack Village District Water Works
   (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied household
   water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class);"

      Subclass A:

      "all persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties with private groundwater wells
      within the Private Well Class Geographic Area (Private
      Well Property Owners Property Damage Subclass)"; and

      Subclass B:

      "all persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties in the Merrimack Village District
      Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are
      supplied household water by MVDWW (MVDWW Property Owners
      Property Damage Subclass).

      The Private Well Class Geographic Area is the area defined
      as:

          In Bedford and Merrimack, the geographic area west of
          the Merrimack River within three (3.0) miles of the
          property boundary of the Saint-Gobain Site; in
          Litchfield, the Geographic area bounded by the
          Merrimack River on the west, Cummings Drive on the
          South, extended east to the Merrimack River and west
          to the Londonderry Town line, and the Londonderry Town
          line on the East and the City of Manchester on the
          North and East, and the geographic area in Manchester
          bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on the North.

   In the alternative, if the Court determines that New
   Hampshire law requires such an element, for the Medical
   Monitoring Class, the Plaintiffs request the court to certify
   the Medical Monitoring Class with the following additional
   criteria:and who have had a measured blood serum
   perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) concentration above 0.05 ng/mL
   after consuming water at concentrations and periods
   identified above.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' tortious conduct caused
perfluorinated chemicals (PFAS) to be released uncontrolled from
their facility, migrate through the air onto the properties of the
class members, migrate through soil to groundwater, and settle onto
and contaminate the soil, dust, structures, trees, household water,
groundwater wells, household water systems, and other parts of
those properties.

The Plaintiffs Brown, Peicker, and Blundon own and occupy, with
their children, residential real property in the geographic area
contaminated with toxic PFAS, including PFOA released from the
Saint-Gobain Facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Saint-Gobain Performance manufactures and distributes plastics.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n5GVec
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. DeCarolis, Esq.
          GOTTESMAN AND HOLLIS, P.A.
          39 East Pearl Street
          Nashua, NH 03060
          Telephone: (603) 318-0445
          E-mail: pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813)-222-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corporation and Gwenael Busnel, are:

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, III, Esq.
          Lincoln Wilson, Esq.
          Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Three Bryant Park
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          E-mail: sheila.birnbaum@dechert.com
                  mark.cheffo@dechert.com
                  douglas.fleming@dechert.com
                  lincoln.wilson@dechert.com
                  rachel.passaretti-wu@dechert.com

Attorneys for the Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corporation, are:

          Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.
          Jeremy Walker, Esq.
          McLane Middleton, PA
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com
                  jeremy.walker@mclane.com

SALT CREEK: Opt-in Plaintiffs Dismissed from Bock FLSA-NMMWA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THOMAS BOCK, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SALT CREEK MIDSTREAM LLC, Case No.
19-1163 WJ/GJF (D.N.M.), the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss party and to
toll claims of dismissed parties for 60 days.

The Court finds that the Defendant's motion is well-taken and is
granted in that Opt-in Plaintiffs Winfrey Garrett and Danny Day
will be dismissed without prejudice from the lawsuit under Rule 21
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case alleges failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Bock
alleges that Salt Creek failed to pay Bock and others similarly
situated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Salt
Creek is a midstream operator in the oil and gas industry.

Kestrel Field Services, a non-party, is a staffing company that
furnishes skilled employees to customers whose projects exceed the
capability of their in-house workforce, including Defendant Salt
Creek. The Defendant contracted with Kestrel to provide personnel
qualified to inspect pipeline-related features like welding and
coating. Under the contract, formally known as a Master Service
Agreement, Kestrel provided the Defendant with inspection services
at various job sites throughout west Texas and southeast New
Mexico.

The inspectors, including Bock and Brett Rice were hired by Kestrel
as its employees. As a condition of their employment, inspectors
were each required to execute a bilateral Arbitration Agreement and
class action waiver. Kestrel directed the inspectors to specific
job sites of Defendant to provide inspection services.

On Sept. 22, 2020, the Court adopted the entirety of the proposed
findings and recommended disposition of United States Magistrate
Judge Gregory J. Fouratt regarding several motions filed by
Defendant Salt Creek and Intervenor Kestrel, overruling these
parties' objections to Judge Fouratt's findings.

These are the Court's pertinent rulings, based on the Court's
consideration of the Arbitration Agreement ("AA"):

   -- Plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate their claims
      against the Defendant, based on Section 1 of the AA,
      because that provision would not have put the objective
      reader on notice that the claims, controversies, or
      disputes with Kestrel's customers (such as Salt Creek) fell
      within its scope; and

   -- However, Plaintiffs cannot pursue their claims against
      Defendant in a class or collective action, based on the
      class action waiver provision in Section 3 of the AA. The
      waiver is not expressed in terms of particular types of
      disputes, claims, or controversies between particular
      parties like Section 1 of the AA -- it applies to anyone.

In light of these rulings, the Court then denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification as moot.

In addition to Bock and Rice, who were supplied by Kestrel to work
for the Defendant, there are presently three other putative
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who were employed by other staffing
companies: Michael Pierson, Garrett and Day. On Oct. 21, 2020, the
parties filed a Joint Status Report pursuant to a Court Order, and
appeared at a scheduling conference the following week before Judge
Fouratt. The parties have agreed that Pierson is subject to a
binding arbitration agreement with his direct employer (not
Kestrel) and that he will be withdrawing his opt-in notice --
leaving Garrett and Day as remaining putative Plaintiffs.

The Defendant contends that Opt-in Plaintiffs Garrett and Day are
no longer properly in the case and should be dismissed as Opt-in
Plaintiffs as a "presumptive consequence" of the Court's ruling
that the named plaintiff (Bock) cannot proceed in a class or
collective action. Instead, they (and any others who want to join
them) would have to file their own separate lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs claim that Garrett and Day are properly in the
lawsuit because the Court's rulings were based on the Kestrel
Arbitration Agreement and so only Bock and Rice are prevented from
pursuing their claims against Salt Creek in a class or collective
action. They maintain that Garrett and Day should continue to
pursue their claims on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated to them, bringing the case back to the potential
class action posture it was when the case began. The Plaintiffs
advocate severing the case into two tracks, with Bock and Rice
litigating their individual claims on one track, and Garrett and
Day with their class claims on the other.

In sum, the Court finds and concludes that Garrett and Day (and any
other putative class Plaintiffs who may opt-in) are no longer
properly in the case, pursuant to Rule 21. Severance offers Garrett
and Day no procedural advantage, while dismissal does not prejudice
them or any future Opt-in Plaintiffs. Further, allowing Garrett and
Day to proceed in a proposed class action alongside the individual
claims of Bock and Rice would be unnecessarily cumbersome,
certainly inefficient, and present potential delay to the
litigation of the individual claims that remain in the Bock
lawsuit. In short, there is every reason to dismiss Garrett and Day
without prejudice under Rule 21, and no reason to allow them to
remain in this lawsuit with severed claims in order to reach
separate judgments.

Therefore, the Court ruled that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Party is granted, and that the claims of Garrett and Day, and the
other Plaintiffs who have opted into the potential class action
lawsuit, are tolled for a period of 60 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7c363st from
Leagle.com.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wins Dismissal of Galaxy Marketing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint, without leave to amend, in the lawsuit styled IN
RE SAMSUNG GALAXY SMARTPHONE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-06391-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Specifically, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to
the Plaintiffs' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and unjust
enrichment. The claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs Omar Atebar, Lizett Anguiano, Tomas Hernandez, Eric
Pirverdian, Tomig Salmasian, Dior Dee, and Jesus Sanchez bring the
putative consumer class action against Defendants Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
alleging certain Samsung smartphone batteries pose a threat to the
safety of consumers. The Plaintiffs allege four causes of action:
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violation
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and unjust enrichment under
California Law. The Plaintiffs request economic losses,
restitution, and punitive damages, in addition to costs and fees.

The case focuses on four Samsung smartphone models, known as the
Galaxy S6, S6 Edge, S7, and Note5, launched in the United States
between April 2015 and March 2016. The Plaintiffs allege that these
phones "are subject to overheating, fire and explosion" due to
dangers posed by the phones' lithium-ion battery.

On May 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2020. They also
requested the Court take judicial notice of eight exhibits in
connection with their Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs have
opposed the motion to dismiss, and objected to the Defendants'
request for judicial notice.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint for failure to plead their fraud claims with
particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and for failure to state a claim as required by
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' entire SAC under four
theories: (1) the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege with the
required particularity that their phones had a defect under Rule
9(b), (2) the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Samsung had
knowledge of a defect in the Plaintiffs' phones at the time of
purchase under Rule 9(b), (3) the Plaintiffs' statutory claims fail
because the FAL is inapplicable to omissions, none of the
circumstances that make an omission actionable under the other
California statutes are present in the Plaintiffs' SAC, and the
Plaintiffs fail to plead reliance with particularity, and (4) the
Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment must be dismissed.

The Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of the
full contents of the Note7 Recall website (Exhibit A), an article
from the website giffgaff (Exhibit D), and a Consumer Reports
article (Exhibit E) because those materials are relied upon, cited,
and hyperlinked in the SAC. The Court holds that it will take
judicial notice of Exhibits A, D and E.

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman opines that the additional
material the Defendants request the Court takes judicial notice of
is not necessary to the Court's resolution of the motion to
dismiss, and the Court does not rely upon it. She, therefore,
denies the requests as to Exhibits B, C, F, G, H without
prejudice.

In its previous order dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint, the
Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to state facts establishing
a defect in the Subject Phones and the Defendants' knowledge of any
alleged defect. The Court addresses the threshold issue of whether
the Plaintiffs have alleged facts demonstrating that the Subject
Phones suffer from a defect. It finds that the Plaintiffs have not
done so.

Additionally, the complaint suffers from other deficiencies, Judge
Freeman says. She notes that the prior version of the Plaintiffs'
complaint was not clear as to whether each Subject Phone model
suffers from a defect. The Plaintiffs do not allege that any of
their phones suffered a thermal runaway event, which was the
primary defect of the Note7. The Plaintiffs' complaint does not
contain any allegations, other than those already discussed, that
support the bare conclusory allegation that the Note7 defect is
found in the Subject Phones.

The Plaintiffs' claim under the CLRA and the California False
Advertising Law also fails due to a lack of knowledge on the part
of the Defendants, Judge Freeman writes. She adds, among other
things, that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead knowledge, and
thus, the UCL claim is dismissed in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the
Plaintiffs' claims under California's UCL, FAL, CLRA, and unjust
enrichment. These claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 24, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8d75ef6 from Leagle.com.


SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Refuses to Toss Lantus DP Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re LANTUS DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 16-12652-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC's Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for
Lack of Article III Standing.

Plaintiff FWK Holdings, LLC is a direct purchaser of the insulin
glargine products Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR, which are used to
treat Type I and Type II diabetes.  It has brought the putative
class action against Sanofi, the manufacturer of both products,
alleging that Sanofi engaged in anticompetitive conduct as part of
an overall scheme to prevent or delay competitors from entering the
market for insulin glargine and charge supracompetitive prices for
its Lantus products.

FWK alleges that Sanofi carried out the scheme by improperly
listing patents in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's book of
Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations
("Orange Book") and then taking advantage of its consequent right
to file patent infringement actions against aspiring competitors in
an effort to block competition before any competing product reached
the market. FWK alleges that Sanofi carried out an anticompetitive
scheme by improperly listing patents in the FDA's Orange Book and
filing meritless patent infringement actions against potential
competitors.

By its Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), FWK is
seeking to hold Sanofi liable for monopolization and attempted
monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  It is
undisputed that the Plaintiff made no purchases of Lantus or Lantus
SoloSTAR after May 2016.  However, FWK aims to pursue its claims on
behalf of itself and a class consisting of "all persons or entities
in the United States and its territories, or subsets thereof, that
purchased Lantus (in cartridges or SoloSTAR) directly from Sanofi
at any time between Feb. 13, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2016 or until the
anticompetitive effects of Sanofi's conduct cease."

FWK contends that were it not for Sanofi's anticompetitive conduct,
including its improper listing of patents in the Orange Book and
filing of lawsuits against would-be competitors, the Plaintiff and
members of the proposed class would have purchased lower-priced
insulin glargine products for some or all of their insulin glargine
product requirements, and/or would have received lower prices on
some or all of their remaining Lantus or Lantus SoloSTAR purchases,
at earlier periods of time and in far greater quantities.
Accordingly, FWK and the proposed class allegedly sustained
injuries consisting of (a) being denied the opportunity to purchase
lower-priced insulin glargine products; and (b) paying higher,
supra-competitive prices for Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR than they
would have paid in the absence of Sanofi's conduct.

The matter is presently before the court on the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Article III Standing, by
which Sanofi is seeking dismissal of FWK's claims, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), to the extent they are based on conduct that
occurred after June 2016.  The conduct at issue includes Sanofi's
submission of patent information to the FDA for inclusion in the
Orange Book after June 2016 and the Defendant's filing of patent
infringement actions against Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Mylan
N.V. and its affiliates.  Sanofi contends that because FWK had
ceased all purchases of Lantus products by the time these events
took place, it could not have sustained any resulting injury.
Therefore, it argues that FWK cannot establish standing to pursue
these claims under Article III of the Constitution.

Sanofi's motion is premised on the contention that the post-June
2016 Orange Book listings and the Merck and Mylan litigations are
distinct events, and that the named Plaintiff must have suffered
injury as a result of each event in order to have standing to
pursue it as part of its claims.  However, Magistrate Judge Dein
notes that the contention is not supported by a fair reading of the
SAC.  As an initial matter, some of the patents at issue in the
Merck and Mylan lawsuits were listed in the Orange Book prior to
June 2016 so that their listing could have caused FWK direct harm
by dissuading putative competitors from seeking to enter the market
earlier and/or by giving Sanofi the means to bring an infringement
action against Eli Lilly & Company in 2014.

Moreover, the Judge finds that FWK has alleged a continuous scheme
on the part of Sanofi to keep competitors out of the marketplace by
filing meritless litigation within the exclusive period triggered
by the Orange Book listings.  Thus, the Merck and Mylan litigation
are further examples of the same scheme that caused the Plaintiff
and the class members harm prior to June 2016, and continued to
cause harm to the class members after June 2016.  They are not
separate and distinct claims requiring the named Plaintiff to have
personally suffered resulting injury.

Admittedly, Magistrate Judge Dein says, the question raised by
Sanofi in its motion is a close one given the lack of clarity in
the law of standing vis-a-vis class action representation.
Nevertheless, the Judge finds that at this stage in the litigation
FWK has alleged sufficient facts to establish Article III standing
with respect to Sanofi's post-June 2016 conduct.  Therefore, and
for all the reasons she stated, she denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79m4and from Leagle.com.


SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint
in the suit related to Abstral(R) is pending.

The Company's predecessor company, Galena Biopharma, Inc., was
involved in multiple legal proceedings and administrative actions,
including stockholder class actions, both state and federal.

On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that Galena and certain of Galena's former officers and
directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices
for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly
improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's
statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.

On December 20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On January 29, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

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

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is
headquartered in New York.

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Zhang Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corp. (OTC: SMICY) between April 23, 2020 and
September 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=semiconductor-manufacturing-international-corp&id=2523
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=semiconductor-manufacturing-international-corp&id=2523

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: there was an "unacceptable risk" that equipment supplied to
SMIC would be used for military purposes; SMIC was foreseeably at
risk of facing U.S. restrictions; as a result of restrictions by
the U.S. Department of Commerce, certain of SMIC's suppliers would
need "difficult-to-obtain" individual export licenses; and as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 8, 2021.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]



SERENA WHOLESALE: Faces Ahmed Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
GULZAR AHMED, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SERENA WHOLESALE, INC. and RAFIQ P. KHOJA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00475-TES (M.D. Ga., December 17,
2020) alleges the Defendants of violations of his rights under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he typically worked 70 to 80
hours per week, the Defendant allegedly deprived him of overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a general
manual laborer from 2014 until October 5, 2019, brings this
complaint to recover unpaid regular and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Serena Wholesale, Inc. provides wholesale goods to convenience and
grocery stores. Rafiq P. Khoja is the owner and operator. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
          THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
          152 New Street, Suite 109B
          Macon, GA 31201
          Tel: (404) 944-3128
          E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


SETERUS INC: Barilla Suit Claims Dismissed Over Settlement Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John L. Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants in the
case, NICOLE BARILLA, LOIS KERR, CHARLES McDONALD, and SUSAN
SAVAGE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SETERUS, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, as
successor in interest to Seterus, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00046-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.).

The parties have filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and
represent that they will pursue a global settlement of the putative
class action and all related actions in Koepplinger v. Seterus,
Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00995-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.) by filing an amended
complaint in that matter.

Considering the parties' representations--and given that no class
has been certified in the case--Judge Badalamenti does not believe
that any review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) is
necessary. Accordingly, the parties' stipulation is self-executing.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines
and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydyd5uxq from Leagle.com.


SEVENTY SEVEN: Myers Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN J. MYERS, on
behalf of the Seventy Seven Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan
and a class of similarly situated participants of the Plan, v.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, SEVENTY SEVEN ENERGY, INC. RETIREMENT &
SAVINGS PLAN; et al., Case No. 17-cv-200-D (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Plaintiff's proposed Class pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or, in the alternative, Rule 23(b)
      (2):

      "all participants in the Seventy Seven LLC Retirement &
      Savings Plan whose Plan accounts included investments in
      Chesapeake Energy Common Stock;"

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of the
      Committee during the Class Period, including their
      beneficiaries;"

   2. appointing herself and proposed class member Christopher
      Snider as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP and
      Bailey & Glasser LLP as lead Class Counsel and the law
      firm Latham Steele Lehman as local Class Counsel.

The central issue in this case is whether the Defendants breached
fiduciary duties they owed to the Seventy Seven Energy Inc.
Retirement & Savings Plan and all class members. This is not an
individualized inquiry. A breach as to one class member will
necessarily be a breach as to all, and any recovery is a recovery
for the Plan as a whole. Thus, if the Plaintiff prevails in
recovering money damages on account of the Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties, the entire recovery will flow to the Plan, to be
held, allocated, and ultimately distributed in accordance with the
requirements of the Plan and The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) itself, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff alleges the Plan's large holding in CHK stock exposed
the Plan and class members to an unnecessary and imprudent risk of
large losses, especially taking into consideration the Plan's
equally undiversified investment in SSE stock.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation spun off Seventy Seven Energy, Inc.
("SSE") on June 30, 2014, and the Plan was established the
following day. Chesapeake's 401(k) plan then transferred assets to
the Plan corresponding to the 401(k) accounts of employees who had
been transferred to SSE in the spin-off. Over 44% of the
transferred assets, worth approximately $87 million, consisted of
Chesapeake common stock. The vast majority -- approximately 90% --
of CHK stock originated as matching contributions by Chesapeake,
rather than through participant decisions to invest their
retirement savings in CHK. The Plan also held millions of dollars
in SSE stock through an employee stock ownership program (ESOP).
Since both SSE and CHK were companies in the same industry, and
since SSE was, by its own admission, "dependent on Chesapeake for a
significant portion of [its] revenues," prudent fiduciaries would
have recognized that SSE and CHK stocks would be highly correlated,
says the complaint.

SSE operates as a diversified oilfield services company. The
Company provides a wide range of well-site services and equipment
to the United States land-based exploration and production
customers operating in unconventional resource plays. SSE offers
upstream services, including drilling, pressure pumping, and
oilfield rental tools.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 28,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mYJxdY
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, 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
                  rjenny@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Bob L. Latham, Esq.
          James L. Colvin, III, Esq.
          LATHAM, STEELE, LEHMAN, KEELE,
          RATCLIFF, FREIJE & CARTER, P.C
          1515 E. 71st Street, Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 970-2000
          Facsimile: (918) 970-2002
          E-mail: blatham@law-lsl.com
                  jcolvin@law-lsl.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, 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

SEVENTY-SEVEN ENERGY: Joining of Snider & Myers ERISA Suits Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SNIDER, on behalf of the Seventy-Seven
Energy Inc. Retirement & Savings Plan and a class of similarly
situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff v. ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, SEVENTY-SEVEN ENERGY, INC. RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN; et
al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-20-977-D (W.D. Okla.), Judge Timothy
D. DeGiusti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate.

The Plaintiff seeks the consolidation of his case with a similar
case filed over three years ago by another putative class member,
Kathleen Myers--Myers v. 401(k) Fiduciary Committee for Seventy
Seven Energy, Inc., Case No. CIV-17-200-D, Compl. (W.D. Okla. Feb.
24, 2017).  Although the Plaintiff states that Ms. Myers joins in
the Motion and although the same attorneys represent both, the
Motion has been filed only in the case, and the Plaintiff's
statement is not supported by any filing by, or on behalf of, Ms.
Myers. Thus, Judge DeGiusti considers the Motion as one filed only
by Plaintiff Snider.

Mr. Snider seeks consolidation on the ground that the two cases
allege the same claims for relief under the Employee Retirement and
Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the same Defendants.

The Defendants oppose the Motion on the grounds that the
Plaintiff's claims differ from the pending claims in Myers and that
consolidation would result in undue delay and prejudice to the
Defendants in Myers and would circumvent the Court's rulings in
that case.  They point out that: the Plaintiff's Complaint is
identical to an amended complaint that Ms. Myers was not permitted
to file; the Plaintiff's Complaint contains claims that were
dismissed from Myers; and the deadline for joining parties and
amending pleadings in Myers expired long ago.

The Plaintiff has replied by asserting that, to achieve
consolidation, he would agree to accept the Court's rulings in
Myers and proceed under the operative pleading in that case.
According to him, the offer alleviates the Defendants' concern
about possible prejudice to them from consolidation and about the
early pleading stage at which the case now stands.  The Plaintiff
also notes that he was deposed during discovery in Myers and that
Ms. Myers' designated expert supplemented his expert report to add
opinions about him before the Defendants took the expert's
deposition.  He asserts these circumstances minimize any prejudice
to the Defendants that might otherwise result from his late joinder
in Myers.

After careful consideration of the parties' competing interests,
Judge DeGiusti is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's arguments that
his case and Myers should be consolidated.  It is undisputed that
the two cases share common questions of law and fact and,
therefore, are eligible for consolidation.  Both cases involve
ERISA claims brought by participants in the same employee benefit
plan against the same plan fiduciaries.  However, the cases are at
very different points in the litigation process.

The Judge finds untenable the Plaintiff's contention that no
prejudice can be shown because the Defendants had his information
before they deposed Ms. Myers' expert and before the discovery
cutoff. The Defendants are entitled to the orderly discovery of
facts, formulation of expert opinions, and preparation for
class-certification issues under the case management schedule to
which the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, in Myers. They
should not be required to engage in a last-minute reformulation of
their defense or reemployment of their experts to address a new
party in a complex ERISA case.  The Plaintiff does not contend he
would suffer any prejudice if Myers is allowed to proceed without
him or if he must await the outcome of the class-certification
ruling in that case.

Judge DeGiusti finds unconvincing the Plaintiff's no-harm, no-foul
approach to litigating a complex, putative class action.  Depending
on further developments in Myers and the case, consolidation might
achieve some judicial efficiency and convenience, but at this
point, the Court cannot say that the potential savings outweigh the
prejudice to the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybgqaqp6 from Leagle.com.


SHEEHANS OFFICE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Sheehans Office Interiors, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sheehans Office Interiors, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10641 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

Sheehans Office Interiors, Inc. is an office furniture store in
Portsmouth, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKY TRANSPORTATION: Cooper Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid OT Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RENEE COOPER, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKY TRANSPORTATION LLC d/b/a
SUPPORT MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION and ROMAN GENOV, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03225 (S.D. Ind., December 17, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful policy and practice in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver from
approximately July 2019 to March 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not pay him and those
similarly situated drivers the overtime premium for all their hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Defendant failed
to keep accurate records of all the time actually worked by
cooper.

Sky Transportation LLC d/b/a Support Medical Transportation is a
business that provides non-emergency medical transportation
throughout the state of Indiana. It is owned and operated by Roman
Genov. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT
          1905 South New Market St., Suite 168
          Carmel, IN 46032
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
                  rfh@indianawagelaw.com


SNAP INC: Kyros Law Files Legal Claims on Behalf of Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyros Law Offices is alerting investors of Snap Inc (NYSE: SNAP)
that the deadline in filing claims from the investor lawsuit
settlement against the company is fast approaching.

The company has agreed to settle a shareholder lawsuit filed
against it by investors for over $187 million dollars.

Snap Inc (NYSE: SNAP) investors that purchased between 03/02/2017 -
05/15/2017 are urged to contact our law firm immediately to protect
their rights. Visit our SNAP Lawsuit Settlement website or call
1-800-934-2921 to speak to someone about your case. Your legal
rights will be affected whether you act or do not act. If you do
not act, you may permanently forfeit your right to recover on this
claim.

The shareholder lawsuit alleged that the company withheld
potentially negative information from investors about competition
with Instagram during their IPO, leading to an SEC investigation
and potentially negative consequences to investors.

Snap Inc (NYSE: SNAP) investors that purchased between 03/02/2017 -
05/15/2017 are urged to contact our law firm immediately to protect
their rights. Visit our SNAP Lawsuit Settlement website or call
1-800-934-2921 to speak to someone about your case.

Receive alerts about potential class action lawsuits that may
affect you by visiting the Class Action Lawsuit Center website.

Kyros Law specializes in a wide range of complex litigation, mass
torts, and corporate governance matters, including the
representation of whistleblowers, shareholders and consumers in
securities fraud, false claims act and class actions. Our lawyers
have been responsible for recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for our clients throughout the United States, Africa, Asia
and Europe. Visit our website to learn more about our firm. [GN]



SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the
"Company") (NYSE:SWI) resulting from allegations that SolarWinds
might have issued misleading information to the investing public.

If you purchased SolarWinds securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit SWI Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed on Form 8-K that it had
become "aware of a cyberattack that inserted a vulnerability within
its Orion monitoring products which, if present and activated,
could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the server on
which the Orion products run." The Company further stated that it
believed the attack was "the result of a highly sophisticated,
targeted and manual supply chain attack by an outside nation
state."

On this news, SolarWinds's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
16.69%, to close at $19.62 per share.

If you purchased SolarWinds securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/solarwindscorporation-swi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-343/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


SOLDIERS' HOME: More Families Intend to Join COVID Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Barry, writing for MassLive, reports that all Francis
"Skip" Hennessy wanted for Christmas was a ride home.

The 82-year-old U.S. Army veteran settled in at the Soldiers' Home
in Holyoke in late 2019. His mobility deteriorated after a fall.
Mild dementia had taken hold. His daughter was comforted when her
father won a bed at his twilight home of choice after 10 months on
a waiting list.

Initially, his move to the state-run facility was a bit rough.
Staff were caring, albeit a little scant. The rooms were slightly
cramped and threadbare. But by Christmas 2019 Hennessy donned a
Santa hat and joined in the home's holiday festivities, according
to his daughter, Erin Schadel. Guilt over placing her father in a
nursing home was replaced by relief.

Three months later, that relief was replaced by dread. COVID-19
barreled through the campus. By mid-June, 76 veterans who tested
positive for the virus were dead. Hennessy, a retired Northampton
firefighter, was spared -- from death, at any rate.

"He was one of the lucky ones," said Schadel, of Holyoke.

Her father experienced only mild flu-like symptoms for a couple of
days in April after his COVOD-19 diagnosis. Many of his comrades
were wheeled out in body bags to a refrigerated truck.

Hennessy is now among the 100 or so veterans who are isolated,
increasingly depressed and anxious, their families say, as the home
adheres to strict infection control standards set by the federal
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"All my dad asked for as a Christmas present was a ride home,"
Schadel said during an interview three days before Christmas.

Instead, she planned to plant herself outside her father's window
on Christmas Day, playing Christmas carols.

The outbreak at the long-term care facility has forced a stunning
collision of death, humanity, careers in tatters, litigation and
government bureaucracy.

Today, families of veterans who remain at the home are
white-knuckling the wait for vaccines.

They have been told vaccines will arrive "on or about Dec. 28,″
per the state's rollout plan that prioritizes long-term care
facilities, frontline workers and other vulnerable populations.

But another employee at the Soldiers' Home told Cheryl Turgeon, a
daughter of 90-year-old surviving veteran Dennis Thresher, the wait
likely would be a little longer because of supply chain glitches
and other challenges. Meanwhile, the families watch headlines
applauding the arrival of vaccines elsewhere.

"I envisioned hundreds of doses on a big truck headed to the
Soldier's Home on day one, escorted by state police with their
sirens going," said Turgeon, whose father is a Korean War veteran.
"And somebody important from the state, like (Gov.) Charlie Baker,
would be behind it, saying: 'This was a national tragedy and I'm
sorry this happened.'"

Not so much.

The state certainly has not ignored the crisis. About $6 million
has been poured into a "refresh" of the current site on a hill at
110 Cherry St. Upper management has been gutted and there are lofty
plans to build a new, $300 million dollar facility despite wintry
fiscal times.

The veterans who live there have been locked down throughout the
pandemic, with brief spurts of visitation. Yet employees stream in
and out -- obviously out of necessity. Recently they have been
tested for the virus twice weekly, as have the residents.

Schadel wonders why the home hasn't gotten more "creative" to allow
families access to their loved ones.

"I get it. They're trying to keep the veterans safe. I want nothing
more than my father to be safe," she said. "But I don't understand
how it's different for me to visit my father, negative test in
hand, covered head to toe in personal protective equipment, than it
is for the staff who have contact with my father every day and go
about their lives once they leave."

Families have been encouraged to conduct video visits while
in-person visitation is suspended, officials say. The facility had
staff on hand on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to help with
FaceTime video chats and phone calls.

Roberta Twining, wife of Timothy Twining, a 77-year-old retired
Springfield police sergeant and former Army paratrooper, said that
even when visits were occurring, staff set arbitrary rules like
only allowing two hugs per visit and often cutting them short.

"They'd yell: 'Five-minute warning! Five-minute warning!' And there
were guards to monitor visits. I think prisoners get treated
better," Twining said.

Leadership changes
Death toll aside, one of the most startling developments of the
Soldiers' Home saga was the criminal case built around the
leadership's response to the outbreak.

Former Superintendent Bennett Walsh and medical director Dr. David
Clinton were indicted on charges of criminal neglect, each pleading
not guilty at their arraignments in November. Other top staff were
forced out along with state Secretary of Veterans' Services
Francisco Ureña.

Val Liptak, the interim administrator who took over after Walsh's
ouster in late March, recently returned to her regular post at
Western Massachusetts Hospital. The board of trustees appointed a
new interim administrator, Col. Michael Lazo of the National Guard,
after a brief power struggle with the state.

Baker's administration has plugged other personnel holes, including
key clinical and leadership roles at the Holyoke site. Cheryl
Lussier Poppe -- who once ran the Chelsea Soldiers' Home, where
there were 30 COVID-19 deaths among 135 long-term care residents,
according to state statistics -- is the new secretary of Veterans'
Services.

The governor's office declined several requests for interviews with
the new or interim Holyoke leaders. A spokeswoman instead sent a
lengthy statement.

"The Baker-Polito Administration is committed to providing quality
care and services to the veteran residents of the Soldiers' Home in
Holyoke and has been focused on making significant changes in
recent months including hiring new permanent leaders, improving
clinical care, and making both short and long term improvements to
the building," it read in part.

"COVID-19 will be with us until the vaccine is widely available and
administered throughout the community, and until that time, the
Home is taking every precaution to mitigate COVID-19 entering and
spreading, including screening and temperature checks of all people
who enter the facility, requiring and monitoring use of PPE, and
frequent mandatory staff surveillance testing. The Administration
will continue to make investments in the Home to best serve the
needs of current and future residents," it continued.

Family members say the home has hemorrhaged frontline staff
including longtime nurses, social workers and other support staff,
whom they've credited as "angels." When Walsh was initially
suspended on March 31, the state brought in emergency medical
personnel including the National Guard, but they have since left.

Many family members and former trustees argue Walsh has been
unfairly scapegoated while the state has largely escaped its share
of accountability for the crisis.

Retired Holyoke Soldiers' Home Superintendent Paul Barabani is
among the leaders of a grassroots network called the Holyoke
Soldiers' Home Coalition, and has said publicly that pleas for more
staff, a better facility and a bigger budget went unanswered for
years.

Barabani lamented a lack of staff and inadequate funding since at
least 2012. He retired in 2016, citing frustrations with state
government and its seeming indifference toward the shortcomings at
the Holyoke Soldiers' Home while its counterpart in Chelsea took
precedence on a capital planning list.

Barabani said his 2012 proposal to build a new home cleared an
initial deadline to vie for a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
grant.

"I was really high when we got the design approved and the promised
funding from the VA. Then it just fell apart at the state level"
under former Gov. Deval Patrick's administration, Barabani said.

When the Baker administration followed Patrick's, the Holyoke
Soldiers' Home fell further and further down a capital improvement
list maintained by the state and federal governments. Barabani
remained through the transition, then began reporting to the state
Veterans' Services offices instead of Health and Human Services. He
claims that when he submitted his last agency review highlighting
staff and facility problems, Ureña and others in the middle kicked
it back to him to whitewash it before it went to the governor.

"They didn't feel they wanted the governor to be aware of that, at
that time," Barabani said. "They suppressed the truth."

Baker's administration has put into motion a "rapid plan" to build
a new Soldiers' Home that is on track for completion in 2026,
according to a presentation unveiled at the trustees' most recent
meeting.

The Payette Group, a Boston design firm, is drafting a proposal for
a new Holyoke facility in time for the VA's April 15 deadline to
earmark grant money. However, that program's entire budget for
soldiers' homes and other facilities across the nation is $100
million. The state must find a way to front the entire $300 million
project cost through a bond, plus commit $100 million in taxpayer
dollars by Aug. 1, 2021 -- or the plan will fade away, as it did in
2012.

Legislators have said Baker is "all in." But finding that amount of
expendable cash in a pandemic-era budget seems a Herculean task.

On the federal level, U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, a Democrat from
Springfield who ascended to chairman of the powerful House Ways and
Means Committee, said various sources of money could pay for the
project, including funding from the U.S. Departments of Defense and
Housing and Urban Development.

"The challenge here is to examine a lot of pots of potential
expenditures," Neal said during a recent interview. "But I'd really
like to know what happened when the money was sitting there in 2012
and it wasn't accessed."

John Paradis is a former deputy superintendent at the home who
resigned when Barabani announced his retirement. He said he is
heartened by the plans for the new facility. The proposal includes
fewer beds, however: 180 to 204, as opposed to the current licensed
census of 245.

"A state-of-the-art facility for 200 veterans in Western
Massachusetts? I'll take it," he said.

Paradis, who recently retired from a post with the VA, is
nonetheless highly critical of other aspects of the state's
response to the outbreak at the Soldiers' Home, including the lag
in getting staff and residents vaccinated.

"In my most humble opinion, the state should have given the vaccine
first to a nurse at the home followed by a veteran since no other
health care entity in our region has suffered more than the
Soldiers' Home," Paradis said.

'Second best isn't going to cut it'
Trustees President Kevin Jourdain said hiring a new superintendent
and being aggressive about plans for a new facility are his top
priorities.

"I think the general consensus is, from this great tragedy, we want
a great deal of good to come. We need to make sure this new
facility will meet the needs of our veterans. Second best isn't
going to cut it anymore," he said during a recent interview.

While it was one of the deadliest outbreaks at a nursing home in
the country, many long-term care facilities have been plagued by
the virus.

Residents of long-term care facilities account for 38% of the
nation's nearly 320,000 COVID-19 deaths — despite the fact that
those residents account for less than 1% of the nation's
population, according to the COVID-19 tracking project from The
Atlantic, which is based on state-by-state public health
statistics.

In Massachusetts, the virus has been linked to the deaths of more
than 7,000 residents of long-term care facilities — about 62% of
the state's total death toll.

In addition to the criminal case brought by state Attorney General
Maura Healey's office, the outbreak at the Soldiers' Home has
prompted civil litigation in U.S. District Court. A class action
suit was leveled in July against several former administrators as
well as Ureña.

Northampton attorney Michael Aleo said while the lawsuit began with
one family, about 40 others have signaled their intentions to
join.

"It was really kind of a level of despair you don't see with most
clients. . . . It was different," Aleo said. "It was grief and
dismay that they had these state actors that had failed their loved
ones so profoundly."

On Dec. 22, a similar complaint was filed against the same
defendants -- Walsh, Clinton, Ureña and former nursing executives
Vanessa Lauziere and Celeste Surreria -- on behalf of Korean War
veteran Stanley Chiz, a Soldiers' Home resident who died of
COVID-19 on April 17.

Both lawsuits relied heavily on an investigation and analysis of
the crisis by Boston attorney Mark W. Pearlstein. His report,
ordered by Baker and released publicly in June, skewered the top
administration. It took particular aim at a decision to combine two
dementia units when staff began calling in sick in droves on a
weekend in March.

But Jared Olanoff, an attorney for Lauziere, claims the Pearlstein
report was more political than factual, and that the home's staff
had inadequate support from the state as the crisis began to
unfold.

Another byproduct of the outbreak was the formation of a Special
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee tasked with inviting
testimony from families, staff and others and recommend ways to
avoid another tragedy.

Among the local legislators on the committee is state Sen. John
Velis, D-Westfield, whose district includes the Soldiers' Home.
Velis, himself a combat veteran with two tours in Afghanistan, said
the primary difference between the committee's analysis and
Pearlstein's is that the committee's intent is to look forward for
the well-being of the state's veterans.

The committee has held two public hearings at Holyoke Community
College and two virtual hearings featuring families, staff and
union members, plus Paradis and Barabani. A December hearing was
stymied, in part, by committee co-chairman Sen. Walter Timilty's
COVID-19 diagnosis. Velis said the next hearing will take place in
January.

The roster is not set in stone, Velis said, and may or may not
include Pearlstein. The committee does not have subpoena powers and
testimony is voluntary.

Velis, a state representative elevated to the Senate in 2020, has
emerged as the primary legislative advocate for families of
veterans, hosting several "listening sessions" over the summer. He
says input from families and staff has been critical to dissecting
the flaws at the Soldiers' Home that contributed to the crisis.

He also argues building a new home with fewer beds will be an
equally critical mistake.

"I would strenuously argue that any projection about the future
need and demand for beds in Western Massachusetts and the state as
a whole is fatally flawed for the simple reason that it's
impossible to contemplate any future conflicts we may engage in as
a nation," Velis said. "Last time I checked, we live in a pretty
dangerous world." [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: Assa'ad-Faltas Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry L. Wooten of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Columbia Division, dismissed without prejudice
the case, Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, Plaintiff v. Henry Dargan McMaster,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01809-TLW (D. S.C.).

Plaintiff Assa'ad-Faltas, proceeding pro se, filed the civil action
against South Carolina's governor, attorney general, house speaker,
and supreme court chief justice, asking for prospective relief on
at least nine separate topics, which she seeks to litigate through
a class action consisting of eight separate classes, all of which
is summarized in her four-page complaint.  The matter now comes
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation filed
by the magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned.

In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Complaint
be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.  After the magistrate judge filed the Report, the
Plaintiff filed objections.

In light of the standard set forth in Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of
City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992), Judge Wooten
has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections.  After
careful review of the Report and the objections, for the reasons
stated by the magistrate judge, he accepted the Report.  The
Plaintiff's objections are overruled, and her Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7smjqzx from Leagle.com.


SOUTH KOREA: Private Cram School Owners Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bahk Eun-ji, writing for The Korea Times, reports that an
association representing private cram school owners said on Dec. 27
that it plans to take legal action against the government, claiming
that their businesses have been forced to suspend operations over
the last three weeks under stricter social distancing measures.

This is the second time they have sought compensation from the
government this month. On Dec. 14, a number of cram school owners
in the capital region, including Seoul, Gyeonggi Province and
Incheon, filed a lawsuit against the government for forcing private
institutes to close their doors amid Level 2.5 social distancing
measures.

The association said they are seeking other private academy owners
to join the class-action lawsuit, regardless of region, size of the
institute and subjects they are teaching.

"Under the Level 2.5 social distancing, which the government
imposed on Dec. 8, study centers and private cram schools were
supposed to be allowed to operate until 9 p.m., but the government
additionally ordered all of them in the capital area to close their
doors," said Lee Sang-moo, president of the cram school
association.

Over the last three weeks, the government issued the order to all
private educational institutes -- except for those related to
college preparations -- but they were only to be closed under the
Level 3 social distancing scheme.

"Most private cram school owners had no choice but to halt their
operations without sufficient preparation. We will no longer put up
with such unfair policies," Lee said.

The association said it plans to take other action from Dec. 28
when the government's restriction ends.

"We are preparing a compensation suit for the three-week ban. If
such restriction on cram schools continues after Dec. 28, we will
do everything we can, including collective action as well as the
lawsuit," he said. [GN]


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Spectrum Legacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 18,
2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the
Company reached a proposed settlement resulting in an insignificant
loss, net of third-party insurance coverage and payment, pending
final approval by the United States District Court.

On July 12, 2019, an amended consolidated class action complaint
filed earlier in 2018 was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin by the Public School
Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge
Retirement against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions in
Spectrum Legacy's financial statements. The amended complaint added
HRG Group, Inc. as a defendant and asserted additional claims
against the Company on behalf of a purported class of HRG
shareholders.

The class period of the consolidated amended complaint is from
January 26, 2017 to November 19, 2018, and the plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
and expert fees and costs.

During the year ended September 30, 2020, the Company reached a
proposed settlement resulting in an insignificant loss, net of
third-party insurance coverage and payment, pending final approval
by the United States District Court.

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manage the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in North America, Europe,
Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions
through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.

SPLUNK INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Dec. 26 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ:
SPLK) between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the
'Class Period').

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=splunk-inc&id=2509
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers in
the third fiscal quarter of 2021; Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 2, 2021.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Verdon, writing for The Davis Vanguard, reports that
pretrial detainees at Missouri's St. Francois County Jail must
endure terrible living conditions, including extreme temperatures,
inadequate medical care, unsafe sanitary conditions, and
retaliation by jail deputies, according to a lawsuit filed against
the facility.

ArchCity Defenders filed the class-action - the complaint alleges
that the defendants (jail staff) deliberately did not accommodate
the detainees' needs, denied them essential necessities, and made
living conditions unbearable.

"The pretrial detainees have not been convicted of any crime and
are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because pretrial
detainees have not been convicted, they cannot be punished or
subjected to conditions that amount to cruel and unusual punishment
either.

"Pretrial detainee jail conditions that amount to punishment of any
kind are unconstitutional as they violate the detainees' due
process rights," argues the ArchCity Defenders complaint.

Jail staff, the pleading notes, gave Robert Hopple, one of the
plaintiffs in the case, a urine-soaked ragged when he arrived at
the jail. He shared his cell with 10 other men, which made sleeping
conditions so cramped some of the men slept standing up.

During the entirety of Hopple's time at St. Francois', he could not
adequately shower, the suit complains

Initially, as the pleading explains, Hopple could not shower for
the first two weeks because the jail did not provide him with a
hygiene pack. After receiving one, he still could not shower
because the water was scalding hot. When Hopple and other detainees
requested the jail address the hot water issue, the deputies made
it so cold no one could bathe.

Hopple and other inmates faced a variety of other sanitary
challenges as well.

"The unsanitary conditions at the jail further complicated Mr.
Hopple's ability to maintain adequate hygiene. Mr. Hopple saw thick
black mold and slime on the walls and floors of the showers. The
toilets would regularly overflow, and there was a lingering smell
of sewage," read the complaint.

Detainees who suffered from disabilities also faced a wide array of
mistreatment from jail staff. Hopple recounts deputies would switch
the lights on and off to signal to the inmates that they needed to
exit their cell. Blind detainees could not understand when this
occurred, so deputies would often storm into the cell to mace
them.

"The deputies used so much mace on the individual that he and the
other detainees in the surrounding cells had trouble breathing,"
details the complaint.

Hopple and other detainees said they found it difficult to get
assistance when it came to their medical needs. There was one
emergency call button in the common area for detainees to request
immediate medical help.

However, individual cells did not possess emergency call buttons
and detainees and, if locked down, they would have to bang on their
cell doors to get the deputies' or nurse's attention. Hopple said
he saw a man attempt suicide with a makeshift rope made from a
blanket. When he attempted to hang himself by jumping off a railing
with the rope tied to it, Hopple pressed the emergency button.

Deputies initially told Hopple not to press the button. He
continued to press until they finally responded, and he informed
them that a man attempted to hang himself. Seven to eight minutes
later, deputies finally arrived and ordered the other detainees
into their cells.

The suit alleges that several minutes later, they got a wheelchair
and wheeled the man out of the area. One of the deputies allegedly
made fun of the man for not knowing how to tie a proper knot.

Hopple said he never saw that detainee again.

Another plaintiff, Stefani Rudigier, first told the facility that
her mental illness required routine, prescribed medication. "A jail
employee then escorted her to a holding cell where Ms. Rudigier did
not receive her medication for approximately three to four days
while in that cell," read the complaint.

Rudigier also experienced severe abdominal pain during her time
there. The jail initially gave her a set of antibiotics, and when
those did not alleviate symptoms, they gave her a different type,
which also did not help her pain. This process continued several
more times.

"When Ms. Rudigier was finally able to see a physician outside of
the jail, she was diagnosed with a gallbladder issue that required
emergency medical surgery," according to the ArchCity Defenders
complaint.

Rudigier also lost 110 pounds while in the jail because of what he
said were the jail's inadequate meal portions. In order to earn
extra food, Rudigier scrubbed the mold of the shower walls for
three days.

The experiences of Rudigier and Hopple are just two of many other
similar experiences found throughout the St. Francois County Jail,
the pleading states, charging the facility often is overcrowded.

"Upon information and belief, the St. Francois County Jail can
house approximately 168 detainees, and the average daily population
is 136 detainees. The St. Francois County Jail population routinely
exceeded 200 persons and, according to a recent government report,
held approximately 300 people despite having never been expanded,"
according to the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that the facility put the detainees in a
high-risk environment when exposing them to certain health hazards
such as overflowing sewage and black mold. Moreover, the facility
did not attempt to remedy the unsanitary conditions.

The complaint also notes that the class action members are so
numerous that bringing all parties together would be impossible.
They said the number of plaintiffs would number in the hundreds if
they did.

"It is completely inconceivable that the actions of St. Francois
County officials have been able to go unchecked in such a pervasive
and systemic manner for so long," said ArchCity Defender Staff
Attorney Corrigan Lewis.

The class-action suit stems from a long line of revealing
allegations of misconduct from the jail spanning years. [GN]


SUNNY ISLES: Puch Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN M. PUCH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNNY ISLES BAKERY LLC; LUIS PANDOLFI; and
MARTIN E. DELLOCA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-25274 (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 28, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Puch was employed by the Defendants as restaurant staff.

Sunny Isles Bakery LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SUPERIOR CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11412
(C.D. Cal., December 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed illegal robocalls
on her cellular telephone number ending in -2755 beginning in or
around March 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in
placing its calls to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons without obtaining their "prior express consent" to receive
such ATDS calls. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone has been on the
National Do-Not-Call list for several years prior to the
Defendant's initial call.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated persons,
who were contacted by the Defendant, were harmed by the unlawful
conduct of the Defendant causing them to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, as well
as invading their privacy.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief
prohibiting such conduct in the future, and any and all other
relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Superior Capital LLC is an investment company that provides funding
to small businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURF CITY: Faces Huleis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
LANA HULEIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SURF CITY AUTO GROUP, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11400 (C.D.
Cal., December 17, 2020) brings this complaint as a class action
against the Defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that she received a text message from the
Defendant on her cellular telephone number ending in -6314 on or
about January 31, 2020. The text message was allegedly transmitted
by the Defendant via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS)
for the purpose of sending spam advertisements and/or promotional
offers to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone service for which she
incurs a charge for incoming calls. The Plaintiff also asserts that
she was never a customer of the Defendant and never provided her
cellular telephone number to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the
Defendant failed to obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive such text message sent via an ATDS.

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

Surf City Auto Group, Inc. is an automobile dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


SWEET STREET: Monegro Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWEET STREET DESSERTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10987-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The complaint contends that the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
shop.sweetstreet.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper
label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title
elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.

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

Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. is a desserts manufacturing company
based in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                                                                   

         Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

SYMETRA ASSIGNED: White Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renaldo White and Randolph Nadeau, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SYMETRA ASSIGNED BENEFITS SERVICE
COMPANY and SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01866
(W.D. Wash., Dec. 30, 2020) arises from the deceptive and
misleading business practices of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, instead of living up to their
commitment to protect personal injury victims, the Defendants
instead used their superior knowledge and unequal bargaining power
to prey upon the very same injury victims they committed to
protect. The Defendants engaged in deceptive and misleading
business practices for one simple reason: to profit at the expense
of unsophisticated and vulnerable injury victims who agreed to
accept tax free periodic payments over time in the form of a
structured settlement annuity rather than in a lump sum.

Symetra promoted the use of SSAs to resolve personal injury or
sickness, wrongful death, and workers compensation claims. It
claimed that SSAs would protect the injury victims' settlement
proceeds from dissipation. The Defendants' conduct in this case
shows just how predatory a for-profit life insurance company can
act when left to its own devices. This case seeks to put an end to
the Defendants' deceptive and misleading business practices that
are causing irreversible harm to injury victims across the nation.
Injured parties with physical injuries or sickness, wrongful death,
or workers compensation claims sometimes opt to "structure" their
settlement with the responsible party. In a structured settlement
agreement, the settlement proceeds take the form of periodic
payments, rather than a lump sum. Typically, the responsible party
assigns its obligation to pay the period payments to a different
entity. That entity then purchases an SSA, issued by a highly rated
insurance company, in order to fund the payments.

Plaintiff Renaldo White is one such victim. At age ten, he was
grievously injured when he was hit by a truck. He became the
recipient, or "annuitant" of a Symetra SSA. SABSCO then bought
certain future payments of that SSA from him for a steeply
discounted lump sum. Plaintiff Randolph Nadeau is another such
victim. He was injured in an accident at a construction site when a
piece of cast iron fell off a waste pipe, causing injuries to his
back and leg, disabling him for a period of five years. He also
became an annuitant of a Symetra SSA. SABSCO then bought certain
future payments of that SSA from him for a steeply discounted lump
sum, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were the annuitants of an SSA issued by Symetra and
the payment stream was purchased by SABSCO in an improper and
inappropriate factoring transaction.

The Defendants are a multi-billion-dollar insurance conglomerate.
Symetra (formerly known as Safeco Life Insurance Company) is a life
insurance company that issues SSAs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Adele A. Daniel, Esq.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 adaniel@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jerome M. Marcus, Esq.
          Jonathan Auerbach, Esq.
          MARCUS & AUERBACH LLC
          1121 N. Bethlehem Pike, Suite 60-242
          Spring House, PA 19477
          Phone: (215) 885-2250
          Fax: (888) 875-0469
          Email: jmarcus@marcusauerbach.com
                 auerbach@marcusauerbach.com

               - and -

          Edward Stone, Esq.
          Lisa A. Salmons, Esq.
          EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
          175 West Putnam Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Phone: (203) 504-8425
          Fax: (203) 348-8477
          Email: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com


SYNACOR INC: Announces Dismissal of 2018 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 19, 2020, that the
company issued a press release announcing the dismissal of the 2018
federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A copy of the press release is available at
https://bit.ly/3nWpPRu.

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.

SYNACOR INC: Awaits 2nd Cir.'s Mandate to Close 2018 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company awaits
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's mandate
to officially close the class action by November 12, 2020.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018. The plaintiff alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its contract with AT&T and the timing of revenue to be
derived therefrom, and that as a result, class members suffered
losses because Synacor shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses.

On August 28, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but permitted the plaintiff to seek leave to replead. The
Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
individual defendants and closed the case on November 19, 2019.

Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on December 16, 2019. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
lower court's decision to grant defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 22, 2020.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will
issue a mandate to officially close the class action by November
12, 2020.

Synacor said, "The Company cannot yet determine whether it is
probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this
complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential
loss, if any. Legal fees and liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by our D&O insurance policy now that the Company has
reached its deductible."

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: March 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Dec. 28 disclosed that
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Taronis
Technologies, Inc. (OTC: TRNX):

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("TARONIS") COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JANUARY 28, 2019 TO FEBRUARY 12, 2019, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, that a hearing will be held
telephonically on March 5, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., before Honorable G.
Murray Snow for the following purposes: (a) to determine whether
the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in
the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and
should be finally approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether,
for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, Lead Plaintiff
should be certified as class representative for the Class, and Lead
Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Class; (c) to
determine whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit B to the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice against Defendants; (d) to determine whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement
is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (e) to determine
whether the motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and
(f) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The call-in
number for the Settlement Fairness Hearing will be posted to the
settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net, prior to the hearing.

If you purchased or acquired Taronis Technologies, Inc. common
stock between January 28, 2019 and February 12, 2019, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
Action. If you have not received a Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), you may obtain copies by
contacting the Claims Administrator at: Taronis Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N.
Jackson St., Suite 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; Toll-Free:
(866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You
may also obtain copies via the Claims Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims
Administrator no later than February 26, 2021, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice,
you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless
of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, by no later than February 12, 2021. Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorney's fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than February 12, 2021.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel: Matthew M. Guiney, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
guiney@whafh.com.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT,
THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

DATED: November 23, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
for the District of Arizona [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Sale of Meats Division Won't Impact Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Whitworth, writing for Food Safety News, reports that there has
not been much public progress on the class action lawsuit side of
things since the 2017 and 2018 Listeria outbreak in South Africa.
But this year, Tiger Brands sold its processed meats division,
which includes Enterprise Foods, the unit that produced the
implicated meat product.

Silver Blade Abattoir, a subsidiary of Country Bird Holdings,
acquired the meat processing businesses at Germiston, Polokwane,
and Pretoria. It appears the brand Enterprise will stay but the
Enterprise Foods business unit name will change. The transaction
does not impact the class action lawsuit.

The outbreak included 1,065 confirmed patients and 218 deaths and
was traced to a ready-to-eat processed meat product called polony
made by Enterprise Foods in Polokwane. [GN]




TOPDOGHR INC: Gray Class Suit Dismissed in Light of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed the lawsuit entitled KELLI GRAY, on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated individuals v. TOPDOGHR, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00336-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.).

The Court states that the parties have reached a settlement in the
uncertified class action.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.08(b), the action is dismissed, subject to
the right of any party within 60 days to: (1) submit a stipulated
form of final order or judgment; or (2) move to reopen the case for
good cause.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y85vqhgh from Leagle.com.


TRANSUNION: Baker Sterchi Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stumph-Turner, Esq. -- mstumph@bscr-law.com -- of Baker
Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC, in an article for Lexology, report that
the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to
TransUnion on a multimillion-dollar jury verdict arising out of a
class action in the Ninth Circuit.

In Ramirez v. TransUnion, a case filed in the Northern District of
California,the jury assessed $60 million in damages against
TransUnion for three FCRA violations: (1) willful failure to follow
reasonable procedures to assure accuracy of terrorist alerts in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); (2) willful failure to disclose
to class members their entire credit reports by excluding the
alerts from the reports in violation of § 1681g(a)(1); and (3)
willful failure to provide a summary of rights in violation of §
1681g(c)(2). The facts relating to the alleged injury suffered by
the named class member are compelling. When applying for a car
loan, Mr. Ramirez was denied financing by the dealership because he
was incorrectly listed a match on an OFAC Advisor "terrorist list"
alert that came up when his credit report was pulled, based on
information obtained through a third party vendor. Notably, the
dealership did not conduct any further independent investigation to
determine whether Mr. Ramirez was in fact a match but instead sold
the car to Mr. Ramirez' wife.

Mr. Ramirez thereafter requested and obtained his credit report
from TransUnion, which did not contain the OFAC alert. However, a
letter he received from TransUnion a day later notified him that he
was listed as a "prohibited SDN (Specially Designated National)".
After speaking with an attorney, Mr. Ramirez learned of the
procedure to dispute the OFAC data associated with his credit file
and did so. The alert was removed. The record revealed that more
than 8,000 other consumers' credit files had also been falsely
labeled as prohibited SDNs from January and July 2011 and that they
received a letter similar to Mr. Ramirez' when they requested their
credit reports during that time. Mr. Ramirez subsequently brought
the above class action on behalf of himself and those other
consumers, who apparently did not suffer any actual injury for
which damages could be awarded. The jury verdict amounted to
roughly $1,000 in statutory damages per class member and $6,300
each in punitive damages.

After the jury verdict, TransUnion appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held that the class members had
standing sufficient to be certified as a class under Rule 23, but
found that the punitive damages award was excessive and cut the
punitive damage award in half.

On review, the U.S. Supreme Court must consider and rule upon two
critical issues: (1) Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits
a damages class action where the vast majority of the class
suffered no actual injury, and (2) whether a punitive damages award
violates a defendant's due process rights where it is exponentially
larger than any class-wide actual damages and multiples greater
than the statutory damages awarded for the defendant's violations.

The Ramirez case comes before the High Court at the end of another
record-setting year for FCRA claims. But its implications far
exceed FCRA litigation. With a historically conservative Court
hearing this case, there is at least a possibility that class
actions may be more heavily scrutinized in the future.

Baker Sterchi will continue to monitor the Ramirez case for
important updates. [GN]


TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Underway in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the named plaintiffs in the
class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower
Litigation, filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all actions in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share
detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation
below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied on January 6, 2020.
The parties are now conducting discovery in the Oklahoma action.

Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints
in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and
California.

On October 6, 2020, the named plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action
filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all actions in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Litigation Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Pork Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation. Since the original filing, a putative class member is
proceeding with an individual direct action making similar claims,
and others may do so in the future.

The individual complaint has been filed in the District of
Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with
the consolidated actions. The complaints allege, among other
things, that beginning in January 2009 the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork
and pork products in violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The
plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which
the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork
and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust,
consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the
plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on
behalf of the putative classes.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.

This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an
amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019.

The company moved to dismiss the amended complaints, and on October
16, 2020, the court granted the motion with respect to certain
state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the
plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, in Illinois court.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the
company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several
other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of
Illinois.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated
actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.
All opt-out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late
calendar year 2020 and 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after
rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions in
calendar year 2022.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified us that the U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a grand jury
subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in
the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to
intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil
action, which the court granted in part.

Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry. On June 2, 2020 a grand jury for the District of
Colorado returned an indictment against four individual executives
employed by two other poultry processing companies charging a
conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

On June 10, 2020, the announced that it uncovered information in
connection with the grand jury subpoena that it had previously
self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully cooperating with the
DOJ as part of our application for leniency under the DOJ's
Corporate Leniency Program.

On October 7, 2020, the DOJ announced a superseding indictment
adding charges against six more individuals to charge a total of 10
executives and employees at poultry processing companies for a
conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products
from at least 2012 until at least early 2019.

The partial stay previously granted by the court in the civil
action was lifted and discovery is continuing. Plaintiffs in the
civil action filed complaints expressly referencing the conduct in
the DOJ's indictments or motions arguing that bid-rigging conduct
was encompassed by prior complaints.

On September 22, 2020, the court ruled that bid-rigging claims will
be consolidated into the existing action but bifurcated from the
original supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims.

The original claims will proceed on their current schedule and the
bid-rigging claims, including any related discovery, are stayed
until the supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims are resolved.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Turkey Purchasers' Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the company continues to
defend putative class action suits initiated by turkey purchasers.

On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
entered into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive
information regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans,
all with the intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial
and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims
based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

The company moved to dismiss the complaints, and on October 19,
2020, the court partially denied the motion.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended October 3, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the alleged fixing
of the rate of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance
workers.

On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed
by Emily Earnest. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service
exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress
and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and
maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The court
consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits
were filed by individuals making similar allegations.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing
additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and
named additional defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On
September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and
certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint
improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court
otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and sustained
claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange
information against five other defendants. The court granted the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the
impermissible group pleading.

On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint reasserting their claims.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

UNILEVER US INC: Lipetz Sues Over Mislabeled Shampoo Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN LIPETZ and SHANNON KEENER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., and
CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No.
2:20-cv-06350 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 17, 2020) arises from the Defendants'
uniform acts and omissions in connection with the development,
marketing, sale and delivery of the shampoo products that violate
the consumer protection laws of the states of residence of
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs purchased the TRESemme
Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and/or TRESemme Keratin Smooth Color
Shampoo because of Unilever's uniform false representation that the
products would smooth their hair and coat it with Keratin, a
protein found naturally in hair. Undisclosed by the Defendants to
Plaintiffs and Class members and therefore unknown to Plaintiffs
and Class members, the products contain an ingredient or
combination of ingredients that causes significant hair loss and/or
scalp irritation upon proper application. At least one ingredient
in the products, DMDM hydantoin, is a formaldehyde donor known to
slowly leach formaldehyde when coming into contact with water, the
suit says.

Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products.
The Company offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances,
and body washes as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise,
spreads, sauces, tea. Unilever United States serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-257
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                  ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq.
          SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC
          Land Title Building
          100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1910
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (267) 328-5245
          Facsimile: (215) 972-1545
          E-mail: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                  harper@whitfieldbryson.com
                  caroline@whitfieldbryson.com

UNITED PARCEL: Sims Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SIMS II on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., a Delaware corporation; UPS, a business entity unknown; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00378-PSG-AFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 1, 2021, to enter
an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. certifying the plaintiff class consisting of the
      following:

      a. Unpaid Security Check Class:

         "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery or
         driver employees, employed by United Parcel Service,
         Inc. at any facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out
         process any time between September 18, 2015, through
         the date of certification;"

      b. Meal Class:

         i. Impeded or Discouraged Meal Class:

            "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery
            or driver employees, employed by Defendant at any
            facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out process any
            time between September 18, 2015, through the date of
            certification that worked any shift of over 6 work
            hours;" and

        ii. Short Meal Class:

            "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery
            or driver employees, employed by Defendant at any
            facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out process any
            time between September 18, 2015, through the date of
            certification that worked any shift of over 6 work
            hours and their time record reflects a 30-minute
            meal break;"

      c. Rest Class:

         i. Impeded or Discouraged Rest Class:

            "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery
            or driver employees, employed by Defendant at any
            facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out process any
            time between September 18, 2015, through the date of
            certification that worked any shift of over 3.5 work
            hours;" and

        ii. Short Rest Class:

            "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery
            or driver employees, employed by Defendant at any
            facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out process any
            time between September 18, 2015, through the date of
            certification that worked any shift of over 3.5 work
            hours;"and

      d. Wage Statement Class:

         "all hourly non-exempt employees, excluding delivery or
         driver employees, employed by United Parcel Service,
         Inc. at any facility that had a Clean-In/Clean-Out
         process any time between September 18, 2018, through
         the date of certification;"

   3. appointing himself as Class Representative; and

   4. appointing his counsel, Joseph Lavi and Jordan D. Bello of
      Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP and Sahag Majarian II of the Law
      Offices of Sahag Majarian II as Class Counsel.

Based on the Defendants' employment records, the proposed Class
consists of approximately 99,997 employees.

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package delivery
and supply chain management company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 28,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htZxDF
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

UNITED SERVICES: Allen Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE ALLEN, MARK ALLEN, AS INDIVIDUALS, AND
ABSOLUTE LIFE WELLNESS CENTER, INC., A TEXAS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND FOR ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellants v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND USAA COUNTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE, Appellees, Case No. 01-20-00305-CV (Tex. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Texas for the First District, Houston,
modified the trial court's order ruling that the Appellants lacked
standing to bring suit, and affirmed as modified.

The Appellants, the Allens and Absolute, challenge the trial
court's order ruling that they lacked standing to bring suit, both
individually and on behalf of classes of other policyholders and
health care providers, against the Appellees, for breach of
contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA").  In two issues, the
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that
they lack standing to bring their claims against USAA.

In their second amended petition, the Appellants allege that in
March 2018, the Allens were insured under a standard USAA "Texas
Auto Policy" with Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") coverage.
According to them, the policy provides coverage for all
'reasonable' and 'necessary' expenses of up to $5,000 for each
insured that result from a covered automobile collision.  Under the
policy, USAA promises to review and investigate, by audit or
otherwise, 'claims for benefits under the coverage to determine
whether fees and expenses were reasonable and whether treatment was
medically necessary and appropriate.  It also promises to pay for
the medically 'necessary' and 'reasonable' charges.

On March 8, 2016, the Allens were injured in a car accident.  They
authorized their health care providers to file claims under their
PIP policies with USAA.  The reimbursable amount of the Allens'
claims for payment of all reasonable and necessary treatment was
reduced based on coded fee reductions.  The Allens concede that
their claims were ultimately paid by USAA but maintain that they
were still injured by the delay and deception that took place prior
to payment.

On behalf of themselves and a class of USAA's PIP policyholders,
the Allens bring a "Bad Faith/DTPA" claim against USAA, alleging
that USAA used false, misleading, and/or deceptive procedures when
handling PIP claims, including: (1) failing to promptly provide to
a policy holder a reasonable explanation of the basis in the
policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the
insurer's denial of a claim or offer of a compromise settlement of
a claim; (2) refusing to pay a claim without conducting a
reasonable investigation with respect to the claim; and (3)
committing unconscionable acts by committing acts or practices
which, to a consumer's detriment, take advantage of the lack of
knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of the consumer to a
grossly unfair degree.

The Allens also bring a breach-of-contract claim under Texas
Insurance Code sections 1952.156 and 1952.1573 and the common law,
alleging that USAA failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of
the Allens' PIP claims and refused to reimburse the Allens for the
reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred pursuant to the
terms of the PIP provisions of USAA policies as a direct and
proximate result of the procedures for handling the claims.

Absolute, a health care provider, alleges that it has also
experienced unlawful reductions, denials, and delays in "hundreds
of PIP claims" it has billed to USAA.  And on behalf of itself and
other similarly situated health care providers, it brings the same
claims against USAA as the Allens based on "equitable assignments"
from the patients it has treated who have PIP coverage from USAA.

The Appellants allege that, as a result of USAA's arbitrary fee
reductions and unreasonable investigation procedures, they and the
putative class members have been injured and suffered damages in
the form of economic loss, loss of the benefit of the applicable
insurance coverage, delay in payments, and administrative or other
out of pocket costs associated with the reductions and denials to
the bills submitted on USAA PIP claims.  According to them, USAA is
required to pay them and the putative class members all unpaid but
owed amounts, reasonable attorney's fees, a 12% penalty, and
interest at the legal rate.

The Appellants further seek for themselves and the putative class
members a declaration from the trial court that there is full
coverage under the PIP coverage as provided in the insurance
contract, which USAA breached by denying benefits owed as a direct
and proximate result of those practices.

USAA answered, generally denying the allegations in the Appellants'
second amended petition and asserting that the Allens lack standing
to bring suit against the USAA entities that did not issue an
insurance policy to them and Absolute lacks standing to bring suit
under the DTPA because it is not a "consumer."  And Absolute cannot
claim standing based on any policyholder's alleged assignment of
rights, because the insureds' claims under the DTPA and Texas
Insurance Code chapter 541.060 for unfair settlement practices are
non-assignable.  It also argued that Absolute lacks standing under
the statute governing PIP6 and cannot bring suit for breach of
contract because it is not in privity with USAA and the statute is
not intended to extend contract rights to medical providers.

In May 2018, the Appellants filed their first motion for class
certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42.  They amended
that motion in July 2018, and USAA filed its response in August
2018.  In March 2019, the trial court issued its first
certification order, denying the Appellants' first amended motion
for class certification.

The Appellants then amended and supplemented their motion for class
certification, to which USAA responded, asserting, among other
things, that the Appellants lack standing to bring their claims
against USAA.  On Feb. 28, 2020, the trial court issued its second
certification order, denying the Appellants' supplemented and
amended motion for class certification.

In their first and second issues, the Appellants argue that the
trial court erred in concluding that they lack standing to assert
their claims against USAA because the trial court was required to
determining standing before considering any class-certification
issues and they satisfied the threshold requirement of standing.

In their first issue, the Appellants rely on the Texas Supreme
Court's decision in Anderson Cancer Center v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704
(Tex. 2001).  The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court
did not err in considering whether the Appellants lack standing to
bring claims against USAA at the time that it did so.  Nothing in
Novak bars a trial court from considering whether a plaintiff has
standing to bring suit at any stage of a proceeding.  In fact, a
court can--and if in doubt, must--raise standing on its own at any
time.  The Court overrules the Appellants' first issue.

In their second issue, the Appellants specifically challenge the
trial court's finding that they did not allege any denial of policy
benefits to which they were entitled or any other actual damages.
The Appellate Court finds that the Allens assert that the insurer
has used discounting methods and claim processing procedures that
resulted in arbitrary and unreasonable reductions in the amount of
benefits to which they believe themselves entitled.  Yet, they have
not alleged that their insurer's actions personally caused them any
actual harm, in that they have not been billed for or deprived of
medical treatment because of their insurer's actions.

For these same reasons, Absolute has no standing to the extent that
it relies on any "equitable assignment" of claims from its patients
who have received treatment under USAA PIP policies.  And, as USAA
points out, its policy also expressly prohibits the assignment of
policy rights without USAA's consent.  Anti-assignment clauses are
enforceable unless rendered ineffective by a statute.  Absolute
does not reason that the Court should refuse to enforce the
anti-assignment clause. And because Absolute has no right to sue
under any USAA policy, it has no standing to assert any statutory
violation based on the policy.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals holds that the trial
court did not err in concluding that the Appellants lack standing
to bring their claims against USAA.  It overrules the Appellants'
second issue.

Because the Appellants lack standing to bring suit against USAA,
the trial court had no authority to do anything but dismiss the
Appellants' case.  The Appellate Court, therefore, modified the
trial court's Feb. 28, 2020 order to eliminate its advisory opinion
on the propriety of class certification and dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction.  It affirmed the trial court's order as
modified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9a77k5u from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in Suit v. DHS   
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.A.R.R.; G.S.E.R, A MINOR
CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT FRIEND, et al., v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-02146-TWR-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on April 14, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Plaintiffs' claims as a class action on
      behalf of:

      "all people (1) who have been placed in the Migrant
      Protection Protocols (MPP) and (2) who have known physical
      or mental health issues for purposes of the
      Physical/Mental Health Exclusion;"

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center,
      Texas Civil Rights Project, and Orrick, Herrington &
      Sutcliffe LLP as Class Counsel under Federal Rule of  
      Civil Procedure 23(g).

The Plaintiffs say that if the Court disagrees with the proposed
class definitions, they move for the Court to redefine or modify
the class definition, as such determinations are within the Court's
discretion.

As alleged in the Complaint, this case addresses the substance and
implementation of three class-wide policies promulgated by the
Defendants: the MPP, pursuant to which immigrants seeking admission
into the United States are returned to Mexico pending their
immigration removal proceedings; the Physical/Mental Health
Exclusion policy, which expressly excludes from the MPP people with
known physical or mental health conditions; and the Family Unit
Policy, pursuant to which family unity should be maintained "to the
greatest extent operationally feasible, absent a legal requirement
or an articulable safety or security concern that require
separation."

The Plaintiffs include E.A.R.R; B.A.E.R., A MINOR CHILD, by and
through his mother and NEXT FRIEND, E.A.R.R; L.Y.G.; H.A.H.G.;
J.A.E.M; Y.J.C.E, A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT
FRIEND, J.A.E.M.; S.F.L.; C.J.M.L., A MINOR CHILD, by and through
his mother and NEXT FRIEND, S.F.L.; Y.M.M.; J.C.M.M., A MINOR
CHILD, by and through her mother and NEXT FRIEND, Y.M.M.; G.F.F.;
M.Y.J.L.; M.M.G., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT
FRIEND, V.A.G.; D.Y.S., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother
and NEXT FRIEND, M.S.S.; S.M.A., A MINOR CHILD, by and through her
mother and NEXT FRIEND, K.A.M.; D.G.M.; N.R.R.; H.H.M.; E.H.M.;
C.J.V.C., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT FRIEND,
M.C.; La.V.S.O., A MINOR CHILD, by and through her mother and NEXT
FRIEND, A.A.F.S.O; and, AL OTRO LADO, an organization.

The Defendants include CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP); and MARK A. MORGAN, Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official
capacity.

DHS is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public
security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of
other countries. Its stated missions involve anti-terrorism, border
security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster
prevention and management.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 23,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rqPvHU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Shwarts, Esq.
          Lillian J. Mao, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          The Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: rshwarts@orrick.com
                  lmao@orrick.com

               - and -

          Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
          Elizabeth B. Jordan, Esq.
          Maria Del Pilar Gonzalez Morales, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
          1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 757-7901
          Facsimile: (303) 872-9072
          E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org
                  ejordan@creeclaw.org
                  pgonzalez@creeclaw.org

               - and -

          Erin D. Thorn, Esq.
          TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
          1017 W. Hackberry Avenue
          Alamo, TX 78516
          Telephone: (956)-787-8171 ext. 127
          Facsimile: (956)-787-6348
          E-mail: erin@texascivilrightsproject.org

UNITED STATES: Class of Asylum Applicants Certified in JOP v. DHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled J.O.P., et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al., Case No. GJH-19-1944 (D. Md.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum Opinion:

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
      Appointment of Class Counsel;

   -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
      to Amend the Preliminary Injunction;

   -- granting the Joint Motion to Stay Summary Judgment Schedule;
      and

   -- granting the Joint Motion for Entry of Parties' Proposed
      Protective Order.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, a group of undocumented immigrants, who entered the
United States as unaccompanied children, on behalf of themselves
and a class of all others similarly situated, brought the action
against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and
several of its officials and components.

Specifically, Plaintiffs J.O.P. (by and through next friend,
G.C.P.), M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., and K.A.R.C. filed a Complaint on July
1, 2019, against DHS, its then-Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), and USCIS'
Acting Director Kenneth Cuccinelli, alleging that a change in the
Defendants' policy with respect to asylum applications filed by
unaccompanied alien children violated the APA and the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On July 1,
2020, USCIS issued a letter to K.A.R.C. granting him asylum.

The Plaintiffs allege that the government unlawfully modified
policies governing treatment of asylum applications by
unaccompanied immigrant children ("UACs") in a May 2019 Memorandum.
On Aug. 2, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining enforcement of the May 2019
Memorandum, and on Oct. 15, 2019, granted the Plaintiffs' consent
motion, converting the Order into a preliminary injunction.

On Dec. 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint,
adding a new Plaintiff, E.D.G., replacing former Defendant
McAleenan with new Acting DHS Secretary, Chad Wolf, and adding as
Defendants U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and
ICE's Acting Director, Matthew T. Albence.

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of the Class Counsel, and certifies the class:

     All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date
     of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the
     policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were
     determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child; and (2) who
     filed an asylum application that was pending with the United
     States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); and
     (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with
     USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or
     legal guardian in the United States who is available to
     provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS
     has not adjudicated the individual's asylum application on
     the merits.

Plaintiff J.O.P., M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., and E.D.G. are appointed as
the class representatives.

In their Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction, the Plaintiffs
request that the Court enjoin the Defendants from engaging in three
practices that threaten to irreparably harm prospective class
members before the Court has the opportunity to rule on the merits
in this case: (1) USCIS' deference to immigration judge's ("IJ's")
jurisdictional determinations; (2) ICE's advocacy against USCIS
jurisdiction in removal proceedings; and (3) USCIS' treatment of a
mere determination or notation that a child has been reunited with
a parent as an "affirmative act."

The Court disagrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Amend is simply a repackaged Motion to Enforce. As the
Plaintiffs' note, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Enforce without prejudice to their right to move for emergency
equitable relief to enjoin enforcement of the IJ deferral policy if
Plaintiffs believe such enforcement threatens impending irreparable
harm.

District Judge George J. Hazel opines that the current Motion
elicits a different analysis; resolving the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend the Preliminary Injunction only requires the Court to find
that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits and that
the proposed class members are likely to suffer irreparable harm if
Defendants' policy is not enjoined. Judge Hazel says that the
Plaintiffs have, among other things, met their burden to
demonstrate that USCIS' policy of deferring to IJs' jurisdictional
determinations will cause irreparable harm if this Court does not
grant their Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction. Thus, at
this time, the balance of the harms favors a preliminarily
enjoining USCIS' deferral policy.

The Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction, and accordingly, amends
the previous preliminary injunction, such that the Defendants,
during the pendency of this litigation and until further Order of
the Court are: (1) enjoined and restrained from relying on the
policies set forth in the 2019 Redetermination Memorandum as a
basis to decline jurisdiction over asylum applications of
individuals previously determined to be UACs, to subject an asylum
applicant to the one-year time limit for filing described at 8
U.S.C. Section 1158(a)(2)(B), or for any other purpose; (2)
enjoined and restrained from rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum
application filed by the Plaintiffs and the members of the class
whose applications would have been accepted under the 2013 Kim
Memorandum; (3) enjoined and restrained from deferring to EOIR
determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications
filed by Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class; and (4)
enjoined and restrained during the removal proceedings of any
Plaintiff or member of the class (including EOIR proceedings before
immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration appeals)
from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements in
order to await adjudication of an asylum application that has been
filed with USCIS, from seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over
any asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the
terms of the 2013 Kim Memorandum, or from otherwise taking a
position in such individual's removal proceedings that,
inconsistent with the 2013 Kim Memorandum, USCIS does not have
initial jurisdiction over the individual's asylum application.

Defendant USCIS will retract any adverse decision rendered on or
after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the
actions enjoined and restrained by (1), (2), or (3).

In the Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction, the Plaintiffs
question whether the Defendants are violating the 2013 Kim Memo by
treating documents where evidence of the UAC's age or reunification
with parents has been recorded as an "affirmative act." Judge Hazel
says that the Plaintiffs try to skirt the deficiency of their
Amended Complaint by arguing that the practice at issue is an
application of the 2019 Redetermination Memorandum through a
litigation-inspired reinterpretation of the 2013 Kim Memo's narrow
affirmative-act exception.

The Court is not convinced. Thus, it denies the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Amend the Preliminary Injunction to the extent the Plaintiffs
request the Court to enjoin USCIS' policy of denying jurisdiction
over a child's asylum application based on an alleged "affirmative
act" involving a mere notation that the child has been reunited
with a parent or legal guardian or has turned 18 years old. In
anticipation of this result, the Plaintiffs have requested leave to
amend their complaint to remove any doubt that USCIS' dramatic
expansion of the 'affirmative act' exception from the 2013 Kim memo
is at issue, as it effectively seeks to implement the same policy
as the 2019 Redetermination memorandum in an equally unlawful
manner. The Court grants the request and the Plaintiffs may file a
second amended complaint within 14 days.

Pursuant to the Court's June 29, 2020 scheduling order, summary
judgment briefing was scheduled to begin on Aug. 21, 2020, and to
be completed on Oct. 16, 2020. In accordance with the June 29
scheduling order, the Defendants produced the administrative record
on July 24, 2020. After reviewing the produced record, the
Plaintiffs raised issues with the Defendants regarding what the
Plaintiffs believe to be deficiencies with the administrative
record as produced. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay
Summary Judgment Schedule on Aug. 10, 2020, requesting the Court to
stay briefing on the parties' motions for summary judgment pending
resolution of the parties' disputes regarding the contents of the
administrative record.

The Court grants the parties' Joint Motion to Summary Judgment
Schedule pending the resolution of the parties' disputes regarding
the contents of the administrative record and instructs the parties
to contact chambers to schedule a status call.

The parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Parties' Proposed
Protective Order on Aug. 25, 2020. Having considered the parties'
motion and the attached Protective Order, the Court finds that the
parties' Proposed Protective Order, complies with the requirements
of Loc. R. 104.13 (D. Md. 2018) and, thus, grants the parties'
joint motion and enters the parties' Proposed Protective Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 21,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybd9gzba from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Cunningham Files Suit in Federal Claims Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States.
The case is styled as Drexel Anderson and Christina Cunningham, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01878-RAH (C.F.C., Dec. 16, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civilian Pay -
FLSA filed pursuant to the Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
   Werman Salas P.C.
   77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 419-1008
   Fax: (312) 419-1025
   Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com



UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Detainees Win Class Action Against ICE
---------------------------------------------------------------
David North, writing for Center for Immigration Studies, reports
that as soon as all the medical and hospital people have been
vaccinated the Department of Homeland Security should pull all the
needed strings to take care of two quite different DHS populations:
the Border Patrol Agents, and the illegal aliens now in ICE custody
(and their minders.)

The case for shots for the agents on the southern border is clear,
as my colleague Todd Bensman has pointed out; these agents are
frequently in contact with people arriving at the border with
Covid-19 symptoms.

The case for giving early shots to the detainees may not be so
obvious. There are two reasons: first, there is the humanitarian
one in that they are cooped up in tight quarters where the virus
has spread rapidly.

The second reason may not be so obvious. The wide-spread presence
of detainees with Covid-19 means that the government is restrained
from placing more illegal aliens in these centers, keeping them
under capacity in order to maintain social distancing. But if all
inmates (and all minders) were to be vaccinated, this factor would
go away, and normal enforcement could resume.

In fact, the arresting officer might say to the detained alien:
"you are much safer from the virus inside our facility than outside
it, because everyone on the inside has been vaccinated. That's not
true of your current situation."

Meanwhile, as various court cases on this issue have shown, there
is a very real problem inside at least some of the detention
centers. In the most recent of them, charges have been made that 80
percent of the inmates of the low-security detention center in
Farmville, Va., have tested positive.

This is an interesting facility that is not related to the
rent-a-prison system we know so well. It is an independent,
for-profit operation and it is located, as the name of the town
indicates, in a rural area, where costs are low. It was designed
for low-risk inmates and has a continuing deal with the town to pay
it one dollar for every detainee keeps overnight. It is about one
hundred miles south of my home in Arlington, and brings its
prisoners to the Arlington Immigration Court hearings through
closed-circuit TV.

Meanwhile, a class action case against a long string of these
centers, regarding how DHS treats its inmates, has been won (at
least initially) by a team of lawyers in the Central District of
California representing plaintiff detainees. The case is Faour
Abdullah Fraihat, et al v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
et al. The PACER number is 5:19-cv-01546 JGB-SHK. The judge ruled
in an April preliminary injunction that ICE had to improve its
health treatment of COVID victims and others in a series of ways.
[GN]


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Caldwell ERISA Health Plan Suit Wins Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY CALDWELL v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02861-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order:

   1. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification, with a specified class period;

      -- certifying the following class:

         "all persons covered under Employee Retirement Income
         Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) health plans, self-funded
         or fully insured, that are administered by United and
         whose claims for specialized liposuction for treatment
         of their lipedema were denied as unproven between
         January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019;" and

      -- damages subclass will be created for members denied
         solely on the grounds that liposuction is "unproven"
         for the treatment of lipedema.

   2. designating the Plaintiff Mary Caldwell to serve as class
      representative, and appointing Gianelli & Morris as class
      counsel; and

   3. directing the parties, within 21 calendar days of the date
      of entry of this order, to submit jointly an agreed-upon
      form of notice;

      -- The Plaintiff along with defendants must also submit a
         joint proposal for dissemination of the notice, and the
         timeline for opting out of the action; and

      -- The Plaintiff must bear the costs of the notice, which
         shall include mailing by first-class mail.

The Court said, "Caldwell relies on both Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule
23(b)(2). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires the additional
finding that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to
act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole." United raises no new
arguments here. The Plaintiff challenges United's application of
the "unproven" exclusion to claims for liposuction to treat
lipedema. But under the certified class, uniform equitable relief
can be applied to the class as a whole. Because the class may be
certified under Rule 23(b)(2), this order does not reach the
plaintiff's arguments under Rule 23(b)(1). This order also points
out that members denied for multiple reasons cannot be part of a
damages class, but they can be part of an injunctive and
declaratory relief class. A subclass will be created for those upon
which "unproven" was the only ground for denial. No damages can be
awarded to class members for whom "unproven" was an alternative
ground for denial."

The Plaintiff alleges that United categorically denied all requests
and/or claims for liposuction to treat lipedema as unproven and not
medically necessary, without regard to members' individual medical
need, in violation of ERISA.

United plans generally cover health services to treat illnesses and
injuries. Lipedema is a chronic, progressive, painful, and
immobilizing condition involving an abnormal buildup of adipose
tissue (body fat). The Plaintiff's plan under her husband's
employer, Oracle, excludes from coverage medical services United
considers to be unproven. Such services are defined as those that
are determined not to be effective for treatment of the medical
condition and/or not to have a beneficial effect on net health
outcomes due to insufficient and inadequate clinical evidence from
well-conducted randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in
the prevailing published peer-reviewed medical literature.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3htLBcR at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Gynecologist Sexual Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jergler, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that the
University of California system reached a proposed $73 million
settlement with seven women who accused a former gynecologist of
sexual abuse.

As part of the class-action lawsuit, more than 6,600 patients of
Dr. James Heaps could receive part of the settlement, even if they
have not accused the former University of California, Los Angeles,
gynecologist of abuse. The proposed agreement, which includes
several mandated reforms at UCLA, was filed in mid-November in
federal court. [GN]



US GOLF ASSOCIATION: Winegard Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
United States Golf Association is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United States Golf Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06119 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 16, 2020).

The United States Golf Association is the United States' national
association of golf courses, clubs and facilities and the governing
body of golf for the U.S. and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell Segal, Esq.
   Law Office of Mitchell S. Segal P.C.
   1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
   Manhasset, NY 11030
   Tel: (516) 415-0100
   Email: msegal@segallegal.com



US JOINER: Vangel FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES VANGEL, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. US JOINER, LLC,
and TRIDENT MARITIME COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00957-RAJ-BAT (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all hourly-paid employees since June 22, 2017, who
      received a bonus."

   2. approving the distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of
      Contact Information; and

   3. setting forth Plaintiff's requests related to providing
      notice to putative class members of any class certified by
      the Court pursuant to the current Motion.

The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of certain current and
former employees of the Defendants, to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

US Joiner is a construction company based out of 4301 Industrial
Rd, Pascagoula, Mississippi, United States. Trident Maritime
Systems provides engineering solutions for the marine industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 23,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2Ju0xLyat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon R. Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 6111
          Edmonds, WA 98026
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: jon@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catharine Morisset, Esq.
          Scott Prange, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2750
          Seattle, WA 98101
          E-mail: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com
                  sprange@fisherphillips.co

VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Lenzini Files Suit under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine & Kebartas,
LLC. The case is styled as Carol A. Lenzini, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Valentine &
Kebartas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-09053 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
16, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC is located in Lawrence, MA, United States
and is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group, APC
   6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
   Culver City, CA 90230
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com



VALLEY GYM: Faces Nieman Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NIEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY GYM CORP. d/b/a USA FITNESS; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11647 (C.D.
Cal., Dec. 28, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Valley Gym Corp. d/b/a USA Fitness owns and operates health and
fitness clubs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VAN BUREN, MH: Wayside Church Seeks Expedited Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Case WAYSIDE CHURCH, MYRON
W. STAHL, and HENDERSON HODGENS, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01274-PLM (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Defendant Class and appointing Van Buren
      County as the Defendant Class Representative:

      "all Counties named in this lawsuit which sold real
      property owned by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members
      for non-payment of real property taxes during the Class
      Period, for an amount in excess of the amount owed for all
      delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, fees and estimated
      pro-rata expenses of administering the sale;

   2. certifying a Plaintiff Class and appointing Wayside Church
      and Henderson Hodges as Class Representatives:

      "all former owners of real property within a County
      included in this Complaint who did not receive the Surplus
      Proceeds after their real property was sold by, or on
      behalf of a Defendant, pursuant to the GPTA at any time
      during the Class Period for an amount in excess of the
      amount owed for all delinquent taxes, interest, penalties,
      fees and the estimated pro-rata expenses of administering
      the sale;" and

   3. appointing Lewis Reed & Allen PC, James Shek Attorney at
      Law and Fink Bressack as Co-Lead Counsel.

The Plaintiffs here would not normally ask the Court to address the
question of certification and appointment of class representatives
and lead counsel on an expedited basis. However, the plaintiffs in
Grainger (Case No. 1:19-cv-501) recently filed a Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel and Class
Representative and a Motion for Expedited Consideration of that
Relief. Because the plaintiffs in Grainger are seeking expedited
consideration, the Plaintiffs here respectfully ask the Court to
consider this Motion on the same time frame as it considers the
request in Grainger. This Court was clear that it denied
consolidation of Grainger with this case, in part, because: the
burden of consolidation on the parties is significant: both parties
are attempting to install themselves as lead class counsel, and
consolidation would certainly cause a battle for representation.
The Court can see no relative savings in time or expense to the
parties if the cases were consolidated; indeed, consolidation would
likely prolong the cases while counsel file competing motions on
every issue presented.

The Plaintiffs are asking the Court to consider this Motion
contemporaneously with the Grainger motion in order to avoid a
situation where the plaintiffs in Grainger (or defendants) attempt
to preclude certification here based on the existence of an
overlapping certified class. To be clear, the plaintiffs in
Grainger have not indicated that they would attempt to make such an
argument; the Plaintiffs here simply want to avoid creating a
situation in which their class cannot be certified because one set
of plaintiffs requested expedited consideration and the other did
not, says the complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 24,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mU3Vgr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Owen D. Ramey, Esq.
          Ronald W. Ryan, Esq.
          Lewis Reed & Allen, P.C.
          136 East Michigan Ave., Ste. 800
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 388-7600
          E-mail: rryan@lewisreedallen.com
                  oramey@lewisreedallen.com

               - and -

          James Shek, Esq.
          JAMES SHEK ATTORNEY AT LAW
          225 Hubbard St.; Suite B
          PO Box A
          Allegan, MI 49010
          Telephone: (269) 673-6125
          E-mail: jshekesq@btc-bci.com

               - and -

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
                  dbressack@finkbressack.com

VICTOR HILL: Court Certifies Class & Subclass in Jones Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA JONES, et al., v.
VICTOR HILL, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clayton County,
Georgia, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02791-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge J.P. Boulee entered an order:

   1. certifying a Principal Class defined as follows:

      "all persons who are now or will in the future be detained
      in the Clayton County Jail;"

   2. certifying a Medical Vulnerable Subclass, which is defined
      as follows:

      "all persons in the Clayton County Jail whose age or
      medical conditions make them susceptible to serious
      illness or death if they contract COVID-19, specifically,
      people aged 55 or older, or people who have been diagnosed
      with, or are receiving treatment for, the following
      conditions: asthma (moderate to severe); cerebrovascular
      disease; chronic kidney disease; COPD (chronic obstructive
      pulmonary disease); cystic fibrosis; diabetes mellitus
      (types 1 and 2); serious heart conditions (such as heart
      failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies);
      hypertension; immunocompromised state (from solid organ
      transplant, blood or bone marrow transplant, immune
      deficiencies, HIV, use of corticosteroids or use of other
      immune weakening medicines); liver disease; neurologic
      conditions (such as dementia); obesity (body mass index of
      30 or higher); pregnancy; pulmonary fibrosis; sickle cell
      disease; or thalassemia;"

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for each
      class; and

   4. appointing the Plaintiffs Barry Watkins and Michael
      Singleton to serve as class representatives for each
      class.

The Court says certification of the Principal Class is appropriate
because the Plaintiffs' only remaining claim for relief concerns
the Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to conditions
affecting detainees generally, regardless of the status of their
criminal cases. Although deliberate indifference to a substantial
risk of serious illness implicates different constitutional rights
for pretrial detainees and convicted detainees -- with pretrial
detainees' rights arising under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause and convicted detainees' rights arising under the
Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause -- under
Eleventh Circuit precedent the deliberate -- indifference standard
applies to each group in exactly the same way. Ultimately, a class
consisting of all Clayton County Jail detainees is workable in this
case. The Court adds that certification of the subclass is
appropriate because the Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that
certain detainees are more vulnerable to COVID- 19 and require
greater protections -- due to age or preexisting medical conditions
– that the Defendants have failed to provide. Here, medically
vulnerable detainees may have claims for special protections from
COVID-19 not shared by all Clayton County Jail detainees.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KSnOXY at no extra charge.[CC]

VOLITION BEAUTY: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Volition Beauty, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Volition Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10820 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020).

Volition Beauty is a collaborative beauty brand designed to share
ideas about innovative skin and body care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WALGREEN CO: Omits Gelatin on Multivitamins' Label, Kanwar Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUNITA KANWAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06256 (E.D.N.Y., December 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive labeling and advertising of the Walgreens Women
Multivitamin Tablets Value Size. The Defendant mislabeled the
product by not including the ingredient gelatin on the label, when
in fact, the product contains notable doses of gelatin. The
Defendant misleads a reasonable consumer, including the Plaintiff,
to believe that the product is a gelatin free alternative to a
premium product manufactured by Centrum, which lists gelatin on its
label.

As a result of the Defendant's omission, the Plaintiff has suffered
allergic reactions stemming from her consumption of the product,
which contains gelatin.

Walgreen Company is an American company that operates as a pharmacy
store chain in the United States, headquartered in Deerfield,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                           
         
         Anil Dass, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ANIL DASS
         42-27 Gleane Street
         Elmhurst, NY 11373
         Telephone: (347) 255-0180
         E-mail: anildass@earthlink.net

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court OK's Bid to Stay Russell Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES RUSSELL, et al.,
v. WAYNE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11094-MAG-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion to stay;

   2. dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for temporary
      restrainging order;

   3. dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to certify class;

   4. dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess
      pages; and

   5. dismissing motion to expedite emergency motion for
      temporary restraining order.

The Court said, "This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay. The Defendants filed a response stating that they
do not object to staying these proceedings. The parties have been
meeting with Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny in the Third Judicial
Circuit of Michigan under the consent decree entered into in Wayne
County Jail Inmates, et al., v. William Lucas, et al., Case No.
71-173-217-CZ, which involves the identical parties. Because Lucas
involves the same parties and this dispute is under Judge Kenny's
supervision, the Plaintiffs' motion to stay is granted. All dates
are stayed in this case until further order of the Court."

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WXosG5 at no extra charge.[CC]

WEBMD LLC: Mouseflow May Respond to Narvaez Complaint by Feb. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
extended Defendant Mouseflow's time to respond to the initial class
action complaint in the case captioned as MARY NARVAEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WEBMD LLC and MOUSEFLOW, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02305-TLN-KJN (E.D.
Cal.), as stipulated by the parties.

Judge Troy L. Nunley directed Mouseflow to file its response to the
Complaint in the action on or before Feb. 4, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9yuytlt from Leagle.com.


WELD POWER: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Improper Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
JIN KIM, DUSTIN CRABTREE and CLIFFORD MODESTE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELD POWER GENERATOR,
INC., EDWARD GEARY, TIMOTHY GEARY and KEVIN GEARY, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-10669 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2020) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Prevailing Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid wages and for the
Defendants' failure to provide proper wage statements pursuant to
NYLL.

The Plaintiffs are former service engineers and a service
technician who worked for the Defendants' generator contracting
business performing maintenance, repair, servicing, testing and
replacement duties on commercial generators and generator
components and automatic transfer switches.

Weld Power Generator is an independent service company in power
generation. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com
                  boysen@peltongraham.com

WELLS FARGO: Ernst Valery Files Race Bias Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hallie Miller at Baltimore Sun reports that Baltimore developer
Ernst Valery, a Black business owner who specializes in minority
neighborhoods, affordable housing and multifamily complexes, has
filed a class-action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging
racial discrimination at a Maryland branch near his home.

Valery, who co-owns Upper Fells Point's Ministry of Brewing -- a
newly opened beer hall and gathering spot in the repurposed St.
Michael the Archangel Church -- filed the complaint Dec. 14 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

A Haitian-born immigrant who came to the United States as a boy,
Valery serves as founder and president of the SAA | EVI affiliate
Ernst Valery Investments Corp. and has a real estate footprint in
Maryland, as well as Washington, D.C.; Pennsylvania; Virginia;
California, and New York. He also serves on Baltimore Mayor Brandon
Scott's transition team for housing and neighborhood development
and has spearheaded Aequo, an investment fund specifically for
minority candidates to launch real estate projects.

But Valery said his resume and long list of accomplishments proved
meaningless in October, when he went with his wife to deposit a $3
million check signed by Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot and
state Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp.

In the complaint, Valery alleges that a Wells Fargo bank manager
refused to deposit the money, and "affirmatively suggested he was
not the type of person who should be allowed to possess proceeds in
such an amount."

Valery left the bank without depositing the funds, despite having
multiple accounts and a yearslong relationship with Wells Fargo.
The $3 million check was a payment from the state in connection
with a historic tax credit that had been awarded to Valery for the
church redevelopment, as well as the Ministry Lofts housing
project, which created apartments out of the church's former
schoolhouse.

"They took away my dignity when they did that -- I wasn't a person
anymore," Valery said in an interview. "The questions I got were
undignified. The treatment was undignified. That's what
institutional racism is."

Wells Fargo officials did not respond to requests for comment, but
told the Baltimore Business Journal earlier that it was aware of
the allegations.

"While we cannot comment on the specifics of Mr. Valery and his
customer experience, we did follow appropriate procedures for his
deposit," Wells Fargo told the Business Journal in a statement. "He
is a valued customer and we hope to resolve this matter with him.
We take all allegations of discrimination seriously."

The situation follows a heated summer of protests sparked by the
killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Advocates and allies
of the Black Lives Matter movement have called for the elimination
of systemic racism in policy, education, criminal justice and
hiring, among other channels.

Valery said he felt obligated to turn to the courts out of a sense
of duty to his children.

"Someone has to take a stand to say, 'Enough is enough.' This
country is better when we're all at a level playing field," Valery
said. "We're so good at getting the PR machine going. But we have
to look under the hood and look at the processes."

Valery's attorneys, Elizabeth Lee Beck, Jared Beck and Victor Arca
from Miami-based Beck & Lee, contend in the complaint that if
Valery had been white, or gone to a branch in a more affluent ZIP
code, he would have been able to deposit the check that day.

"Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the instant action concerns
yet another despicable and outrageous instance of 'banking while
Black' at Wells Fargo," the attorneys wrote in the complaint,
referring to a recent New York Times article detailing four
instances of racial profiling at Wells Fargo branches across the
country. "There are only two factors which caused Mr. Valery to
leave Wells Fargo that day unable to deposit his own funds in his
own bank account . . . Those two factors are (1) the color of Mr.
Valery's skin; and (2) the racism of Wells Fargo."

The suit cites two prior cases against Wells Fargo: In 2012, the
bank paid $175 million to resolve claims brought by the U.S.
Department of Justice that it charged Black and Hispanic people
higher rates and fees on mortgages. And in August, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city of Oakland,
California, which claimed that Well Fargo's discriminatory lending
practices to Black and minority customers caused diminished
property tax revenues to the city, in violation of the Fair Housing
Act of 1968.

Valery and his legal team are seeking monetary damages and an
injunction, or an immediate end to the discriminatory practices
alleged. It also asks for the court to notify every Black banking
customer of Wells Fargo of opportunities to obtain damages or
restitution.

Elizabeth Lee Beck said people already have reached out about
joining the class action. The court will have to grant the firm
permission to conduct an investigation before it decides what type
of injunction to request, she said. It's not clear that the court
will do so.

"I've had extremely meritorious cases thrown out before, but I have
hope," she said. "This case isn't about him personally. What's
going on here is something systemic. A lot of the civil rights in
this country have been won and fought in civil court."

Valery said the case could have nationwide implications and change
the way bank employees interact with minority customers.

"People of color haven't finished fighting for their rights to be
treated equally," he said. "For all the people who have gone
through this at Wells Fargo and banks like Wells Fargo, it won't
stop until we take legal action." [GN]



WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Jail Class in Baxley Inmate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the lawsuit captioned JOHN BAXLEY, JR., EARL EDMONDSON, JOSHUA
HALL, DONNA WELLS-WRIGHT, HEATHER REED, and DANNY SPIKER, JR., on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and THE WEST
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Case No.
3:18-1526, Consolidated with Case Nos. 3:18-1533 and 3:18-1436
(S.D. W. Va.).

The class action alleges that pretrial detainees and inmates in
West Virginia's regional jails have been provided inadequate mental
and medical health care. The regional jails are operated by the
West Virginia Division of Corrections ("WVDCR") and Rehabilitation
under the direction of Commissioner Betsy Jividen. The Plaintiffs
also allege that the Defendant has committed unlawful acts of
discrimination by failing to make reasonable accommodations for
detainees and inmates with disabilities, depriving them of jails
services, programs, and activities in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

In their Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs propose the
definition for their Jail Class: "All Persons who are, or who will
be, admitted to a jail in West Virginia." They also seek to certify
a subclass of plaintiffs within WVDCR custody, who have
disabilities. The proposed subclass definition reads as follows:
"All persons who are, or will be, admitted to a jail in West
Virginia who meet the definition of a qualified individual with a
disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act."

District Judge Robert C. Chambers holds that the Plaintiff class is
readily identifiable.  He also finds that the Plaintiffs satisfied
the numerosity, typicality and commonality requirement of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He further finds that Rule
23(a)(4) is satisfied.

The Defendant urges the Court to deny certification claiming that
the "overly broad relief sought by the Plaintiffs raises
significant federalism concerns, essentially conferring
jurisdiction and control over the health care of all inmates at 10
regional jail facilities. Given the weight of the Plaintiffs'
claims, the Court rejects the argument.

Judge Chambers opines that the constitutional violations alleged by
the Plaintiffs are within the Court's jurisdiction, and the Court
is not permitted to shrink from its obligation to enforce the
constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners, citing
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). The Judge declines to
allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy
would involve intrusion into the realm of jail administration.

In conclusion, the Court grants, in part, the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs' "Jail Class" is now
certified and may proceed as a class action.

The Court withholds judgment regarding the certification of
thePlaintiffs' Disability Subclass. It directs the parties to
provide the Court with memoranda regarding the suitability of
certification for that class. The Plaintiffs' supplemental
memorandum is due by Jan. 11, 2021. After the Plaintiffs submit
their memorandum, the Defendant will have 14 days to file a
response.

The Court further directs the parties to meet to address the
completion of discovery and propose a new scheduling order. The
parties' Rule 26(f) report is due by Jan. 11, 2021. The Court
schedules a scheduling/status conference on Jan. 19, 2021, at 11:30
a.m.

The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of its written Opinion
and Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zygkpv from
Leagle.com.


WEST VIRGINIA: WVDCR Dismissed from Baxley Inmates Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit
styled JOHN BAXLEY, JR., et al. v. BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official
capacity as Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-1526 (S.D.W.
Va.).

The West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation
("WVDCR") is the government agency tasked with operating the jails
and prisons in West Virginia. Defendant Betsy Jividen serves as the
Commissioner of WVDCR.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of pretrial detainees
and convicted inmates housed at West Virginia's regional jail
facilities. In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief requiring the Defendant, Commissioner of the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to promptly
provide appropriate and necessary medical and mental health
treatment to inmates upon admission, as required under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In Count I, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant violated the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, they claim the Defendant,
acting under the color of state law, has been deliberately
indifferent to the serious medical needs of the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated inmates by failing to establish, monitor,
and/or enforce policy directives and operational procedures to
ensure that inmates admitted to jails in West Virginia receive
prompt medical treatment for their medical and mental health
conditions.

As a result of the deliberate indifference, the Plaintiffs claim
that they have suffered physical, mental, and emotional injuries,
as well as being denied the ability to participate in the daily
activities of jail life. The Plaintiffs seek only injunctive
relief, and have asked the Court to require the Defendant to
implement or enforce policies, procedures, and practices necessary
to ensure prompt medical and mental health care is provided to all
inmates admitted to a jail in West Virginia, and provide the
training, equipment and supplies necessary to all relevant
employees to ensure those policies and practices are implemented
with fidelity.

In Count II, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's failure to
implement a policy or procedure to provide appropriate medical and
mental health services has violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") through a pattern and practice of discrimination;
inadequate and discriminatory methods of state-wide administration
and supervision; a continuing pattern and practice of deliberate
indifference; and violation of the reasonable accommodation
requirement of federal law.

The Defendant has moved for summary judgment based on several
different arguments. She alleges that five of the six Named
Plaintiffs should be dismissed based on mootness. She argues that
all of the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. She adds, among other things, that the
Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to support their
claim for deliberate indifference and their Americans with
Disabilities Act claims.

District Judge Robert C. Chambers denies the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment against the Plaintiffs based on mootness. He,
however, holds that Plaintiff Well-Wright's claims are not moot,
and she may proceed as a Named Plaintiff.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
the Court finds that a reasonable factfinder could find that the
Defendant's actions (and omissions) amounted to deliberate
indifference toward the mental and medical health care needs of
inmates at West Virginia Regional Jails. It denies the Defendant's
Motions for Summary Judgment on this basis. It also declines to
grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on Wells-Wright's
ADA claim.

Based on the memoranda and evidence available to the Court, Judge
Chambers opines that all but one Plaintiff have failed to state a
failure to accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motions for
Summary Judgment as to the ADA claim in Count II with regard to
Plaintiffs John Baxley, Jr., Heather Reed, Earl Edmondson, Danny
Spiker and Joshua Hall. Plaintiff Donna Wells-Wright may proceed on
her ADA Claim in Count II of the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

In conclusion, the Court denies, in part, and grants, in part, ECF
No. 263, ECF No. 267, ECF No. 269, ECF No. 271, and ECF No. 277.
The Motions are denied to the extent that the Court finds the Named
Plaintiffs' claims are not moot; the Plaintiffs did not fail to
exhaust their administrative remedies; and the Plaintiffs have not
failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference in Count I of
the Second Amended Complaint. The Motions are granted to the extent
that Plaintiffs Baxley, Spiker, Reed, Edmondson, and Hall have
failed to state a claim under the ADA. Accordingly, their claims in
Count II are dismissed.

The Court further denies the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Donna Wells-Wright and Defendant's Supplemental
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Donna Wells-Wright (ECF No. 273
and ECF No. 328). The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
Surreply, ECF No. 336, is denied as moot. Finally, Pursuant to
Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal, WVDCR is dismissed as a party to
the action.

The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of its written Opinion
and Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 21, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yabkcxx3 from
Leagle.com.


WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Hotel Quarantine System
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Myles, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the
lawyer for a woman who allegedly absconded from hotel quarantine in
Perth at the weekend says there is a "lack of empathy" in the
system set up to handle returning international travellers.

Serene Teffaha, the principal lawyer of Advocate Me, plans to run a
class action lawsuit over the hotel quarantine system in Australia
and told Radio 6PR's Mornings program "many people" had contacted
her about their treatment.

WA Police put out the call to help track down Jenny D'Ubios on Dec.
26 after she allegedly evaded security at the Pan Pacific Hotel in
Perth's CBD and roamed the wider city before taking a taxi to
Rockingham Hospital, where police eventually caught up with her
about 10.20pm.

Ms D'Ubios, 49, had posted videos to social media complaining about
allergies and health conditions she claimed to be suffering due to
conditions in her hotel room, and threatened to "walk out" mid-way
through her quarantine.

Ms Teffaha said Ms D'Ubios was prepared to quarantine after
returning to Perth from Madrid, via Doha, but struggled with the
condition of her hotel room.

Ms Teffaha told 6PR her client had "quite intense" allergies which
were "deeply exacerbated" during her stay.

Ms D'Ubios was taken to Royal Perth Hospital twice, but in a press
conference on Sunday, WA Deputy Chief Health Officer Robyn Lawrence
said there was nothing to alert authorities that the woman couldn't
be managed in hotel quarantine, "the same as 20,000 other
arrivals".

However, Ms Teffaha said her client was reaching "breakdown point"
as a result of her symptoms, and instead of handling them
appropriately, the "hand of law" dealt with Ms D'Ubios "in a very
reactive and dramatic sense".

"To me, what should have occurred immediately is a reconsideration
of her room, of whether she had a balcony, problems with the lack
of ventilation in hotels, this is a very common issue and a very
common problem for my clients," she said.

In a statement to 6PR, Pan Pacific general manager Rob Weeden said
rooms were cleaned for guests' arrival and there were extra hygiene
protocols in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr Weeden said quarantine guest rooms were not serviced daily --
for obvious reasons -- but guests were provided cleaning products
for their stay.

He said there was no mould in Ms D'Ubios' room, the
air-conditioning provided 98 per cent fresh air, and the dust was
"as one would expect after a week's stay and no cleaning".

Ms D'Ubios is now in Bandyup Women's Prison, next due to face court
on January 4 over a charge of failing to comply with a direction.
She faces a fine of up to $50,000 or 12 months imprisonment.

Ms Teffaha said she didn't know exactly how Ms D'Ubios was alleged
to have escaped the hotel, but spoke to her while she was out in
Perth, as well as police, and hoped the situation would be calmed
by Ms D'Ubios going to hospital.

At the Dec. 27 press conference, it emerged a security guard had
followed Ms D'Ubios out of the hotel but lost sight of her before
police arrived.

WA Health Minister Roger Cook conceded "there was a small window
between the woman leaving the hotel and police arriving", while WA
Police Assistant Commissioner Paul Steel said officers rushed to
the hotel and got there "within 5 minutes".

Police continued to search for Ms D'Ubios throughout Dec. 26,
before putting out a call for public help about 7pm, nine hours
after she left the hotel.

Ms Teffaha said the reaction from WA Police and the state
government had been "obnoxious".

She said police were "criminalising and coming after people in a
way that is completely disproportionate", and magistrates and
judges needed to be "more open-minded" when overseeing quarantine
breach cases.

"This is an issue in the medical sphere, not in the criminal
sphere," Ms Teffaha said.

She said international arrivals to Australia were immediately
"being treated as suspect COVID", which led to a "lack of empathy"
and an "over-policing model" evident across Australia.

On Dec. 27, Mr Cook made no apologies for the actions the
government and police took to manage returning travellers.

"Any small crack in fortress Western Australia is not good enough,"
he said.

But on the subject of the Dec. 26 breach, he was blunt: "It is the
individual in this particular circumstance who chose to break
quarantine, and she has to take responsibility for her actions."

Doctors' lobby backs quarantine system review
Australian Medical Association WA president Andrew Miller said the
state's hotel quarantine needed an upgrade.

"We need hotel quarantine that is humane, that is safe, that is
effective and that people just can't walk out of when they feel
like it," he said.

Dr Miller said he had been told of people who presented a
legitimate medical opinion from a psychiatrist but were still made
to quarantine in hotels, which impacted their mental health.

"I think asking anybody to stay inside a hotel room for 14 days is
a big ask," he said.

"The government do need to step up with quarantine that is more
humane for people . . . it's good for them and also good for us.

"It's a win-win situation if you don't have people who are lying or
who are evading quarantine in some other way."

Dr Miller said an independent review of WA's quarantine system was
"appropriate" and the government should take inspiration from the
best ideas around the world, noting a model allowing for fresh air,
sunlight and limited outdoor trips could be done "without a great
deal of extra expense".

"Fresh air in particular, for what is an airborne disease, is
important," he said.

"We've got the time, we've got the money, let's look into how we
can be doing things better." [GN]


WILLIAM GRANT: Alonzo Sues Over Rum's "18" and "Slow Aged" Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ALONZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM GRANT & SONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10937-JMF (S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General
Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's false and misleading labeling
and marketing of the Flor de Cana rum made by Compania Licorera de
Nicaragua, from Nicaragua. The product's relevant front label
representations include "Tradition," "Artisanal," "18," "Slow Aged"
and "Single Estate Rum." The use of the statements "18" and "Slow
Aged" gives consumers, including the Plaintiff, the impression it
was aged longer than it was. However, the product's youngest rum is
not 18 years old. In fact, the product is a mix of younger and
older rums, purportedly with an "average" age of 18 years old. The
Plaintiff and Class members reasonably and justifiably relied on
these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served to
induce and did induce, the purchase of the product. They would not
have purchased the product or paid as much if the true facts had
been known, suffering damages.

William Grant & Sons, Inc. is a family-owned premium spirits
company, with a principal place of business in Edison, New Jersey,
Middlesex County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                                                                   

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

WISCONSIN: Disclosure of Heredia Class' Confidential Info Allowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin authorized the disclosure of the
class members' confidential information in the case, VICTORIANO
HEREDIA, et al., Plaintiff v. JOHN TATE II, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00338-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

The action, filed April 30, 2019, alleges inter alia, that inmates
sentenced as juveniles to life or to a de facto life sentence, with
the possibility of parole, are being denied their right to a
meaningful opportunity to be released on parole based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, in violation of their
Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

On Oct. 20, 2020, the Court certified the case as a class action
for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2).  The Parties have begun to engage in discovery.  Among
the documents requested by the counsel for the Plaintiffs are
portions of the class members' institutional files, including
programming information and parole and classification decisions.
These records may include protected educational information,
personally identifying health information, and substance use
disorder treatment information as defined by 42 C.F.R. Part 2 ("SUD
information") ("Confidential Information").

In the case, notice has been provided as required by the
regulation.  Per the stipulation of the counsel, during the week of
Dec. 14 to 18, 2020, the Notice will be distributed to each class
member.  The Notice provided that all the class members currently
incarcerated by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections have 20
days to object in writing to the disclosure of parole,
classification, social services and program records that may
reference SUD information and, thus, be considered SUD records
under 42 C.F.R. Part 2.

Magistrate Judge Crocker finds that good cause exists for
disclosure of the SUD information of class members, who do not file
written objections to such disclosure pursuant to the above notice
procedure.  Given the allegations in the lawsuit, the Parties agree
that counsel and experts for both sides may need access to the
class members' institutional records, which may contain SUD
information.  The SUD information itself may be relevant to the
claims in the case; and even if it were not, the Parties take the
position that it is not possible to segregate or redact SUD
information from the often voluminous parole, classification,
social services and program records of class members.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge finds that other ways of obtaining
the information needed to resolve the case are not available, and
that the public interest and the need for disclosure outweigh any
possible injury from disclosure.  His order relates only to the
disclosure of the confidential information described and does not
enlarge or limit the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  On Aug. 13, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulated
Protective Order covering all discovery in the case.

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed that Protective Order and
concludes that it satisfies the requirements that disclosure of SUD
information be limited and appropriately safeguarded.  The
Protective Order is incorporated by reference and will apply to all
Confidential Information that is disclosed pursuant to the present
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycmxkflu from Leagle.com.


WUSA-TV INC: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wusa-Tv, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wusa-Tv, Inc. doing business as:
www.wusa9.com, Tegna Inc. doing business as: Tegna NY, Case No.
1:20-cv-06284 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2020).

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

Wusa-Tv, Inc., owned by Tegna Inc. (based in the nearby Virginia
suburb of McLean) -- https://www.wusa9.com/ -- serves as the
flagship television property of the company.[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


YUBA COUNTY, CA: Immigrant Advocates Warn on Jail COVID Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Wiley at kqed.org reports that immigrant advocates say a
growing outbreak of COVID-19 at the Yuba County Jail is putting the
people held there at risk, including some who are medically
vulnerable.

On Dec. 16, Yuba County Jail officials closed the facility to
visits after they identified seven confirmed cases. Since then,
according to attorneys, the number of people infected has increased
to 78, which is more than 30% of the total jail population.

While the majority of people housed at the Yuba County Jail are in
county custody, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees
are held there as well. In April, the San Francisco Public
Defender's office filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of ICE
detainees at the Yuba jail and the Mesa Verde detention facility in
Bakersfield, citing dangerous conditions.

Katie Kavanagh, a senior attorney for the San Francisco-based
California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, says she spoke with
two detainees who have tested positive for COVID-19. Kavanagh says
they described "disgusting conditions," including "trash, gum,
fingernails and excrement," and reported using a bathroom shared by
those with and without COVID-19 that is "not cleaned between
uses."

Over the summer, ICE detainees inside the facility went on a hunger
strike for five days to draw attention to the situation.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who's presiding over the case,
ruled that lawyers could apply for the release of ICE detainees on
a case-by-case basis. He also ordered in June that ICE and the jail
take precautions such as keeping detainees out of the older, more
crowded side of the jail and isolating COVID-19 symptomatic
people.

But immigrant advocates say those protections have begun to erode.

"We saw detainees starting to be moved back into the old side of
the jail, and later on [housed] two to a cell," said Kelly Engel
Wells, a San Francisco deputy public defender. "We received reports
of symptomatic individuals who were not being isolated and tested
as the protocol required. And that just set up the perfect storm
for the first positive case that happened about two weeks ago."

Kavanagh estimates the jail currently houses around 20 ICE
detainees out of the total 235 people held there.

One is her client Ruperto Robles, 59, who's been detained in the
facility since November 2019. Originally from Mexico, he has lived
in the United States with a green card for 30 years, Kavanagh said,
but was transferred to ICE for deportation after some contact with
law enforcement. Robles contracted COVID-19 at Yuba, and is
considered medically vulnerable due to a history of diabetes,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia and obesity.

"He was considered so high risk in terms of COVID that he has been
held in isolation for most of the pandemic, which has been really
harmful to his mental health," Kavanagh said. "And despite claiming
that they were isolating him to protect him, he was moved within
the jail to four different locations within the past two weeks,
including into locations where people were later testing

Speaking through an interpreter, Robles told KQED he had been
feeling healthy until he was transferred around the facility.

Kavanagh also said she and Robles received conflicting information
about whether or not he had COVID-19, something that only came to
light as part of the class-action lawsuit.

"Two days ago, at night, they told class counsel that Ruperto was
positive for COVID. In the morning, they said, 'Never mind, he's
not positive.' And then two hours later, on the status conference,
they said, 'oops, never mind. He is positive,'" she said. "So what
we're seeing is just a very high level of incompetence and
disregard for human life."

Kavanagh has filed a request for Robles to be released to a hotel
room where he can recover from the virus and isolate while his case
is decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. An immigrant
rights group, NorCal Resist, has committed to pay for the hotel
room and provide Robles with post-release support.

Robles said he would feel safer in a hotel room, and his health
would more likely improve if he was removed from the jail
outbreak.

As part of the lawsuit, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office
filed a new motion for a temporary restraining order, asking that
Chhabria mandate additional safety protocols inside the facility,
including providing weekly testing, individually isolating all
symptomatic individuals and releasing people from custody,
especially those who are medically vulnerable.

"We're now 10 months in and we have the first positive case --
which actually is quite lucky that this has taken this long -- and
yet it still seems to have caught Yuba County officials by
surprise. They seem to have had absolutely no plan," Wells said.
"That's one of the most frustrating things, is that all of this
could really have been avoided if basic precautions had been in
place."

Yuba County Jail officials did not respond to a request for
comment.

A spokesman for ICE said he could not comment on the outbreak at
Yuba due to pending litigation. [GN]


ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential securities violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims
against Zoom Telephonics, Inc. ("Zoom Telephonics" or the
"Company")(OTCQB: MINM).

If you currently own shares of Zoom Telephonics and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/zoom-telephonics-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.


Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising.

Contact:

Craig J. Springer, Esq.
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013 [GN]


[*] Class Actions, Divestments Dominate Australian Banks in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sameer Manekar and Rashmi Ashok, writing for Reuters, report that
Australian banking regulators tightened their grip around the "Big
Four" in a year beset with numerous class action lawsuits -- some
stemming from a 2019 investigation into the industry -- record
fines and divestitures.

Below is a timeline that tracks developments in the Australian
banking sector in 2020 and steps taken by lenders to stay afloat as
credit losses and impairment charges spiked from the COVID-19
pandemic.

Jan. 22, 2020: Law firm Maurice Blackburn files a class action
lawsuit against two entities of National Australia Bank on behalf
of more than 330,000 account holders for alleged breaches in
pension laws.

Jan. 23: A class action is filed against Commonwealth Bank of
Australia's pension arm, Colonial First State, for allegedly not
acting in customers' interest for insurance policies.

Jan. 31: A class action naming former Westpac Banking Corp CEO
Brian Hartzer and interim CEO Peter King as defendants is filed in
a U.S. court.

The lawsuit was related to disclosure issues with its financial
crime monitoring and a money laundering scandal.

Feb. 19: Westpac warns of a hit to its 2020 profit from a rise in
costs related to improving risk management systems in the wake of a
money-laundering scandal and the country's deadly bushfires.

Feb. 28: A class action is filed by law firm Slater and Gordon
against Westpac and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group for
selling "junk insurance".

April 7: The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) asks
banks and insurers to consider deferring dividend payouts or use
buffers like dividend reinvestment plans until the impact of the
pandemic is better known.

April 20: NAB warns provisions for customer remediation and changes
to a software capitalisation policy expected to reduce first-half
earnings by A$1.22 billion.

April 30: ANZ defers dividend decision and posts an almost
two-thirds plunge in first-half profit.

May 5: Australia's big banks warn that credit losses from the
country's first recession in three decades will top A$17 billion.

May 13: CBA books A$1.5 billion in provisions in the third quarter
to cover future pandemic-related loan losses, bringing its total
credit provisions to A$6.4 billion.

Announces sale of a 55% stake in its Colonial First State wealth
management business to KKR & Co Inc for A$1.7 billion

May 15: Westpac admits to millions of breaches of anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorism laws in a filing in Australia's
Federal Court, but denies accusations it enabled illegal payments
between known child sex offenders.

June 4: Westpac's internal investigation concludes that child
exploitation payments made through its system were the result of
"faults of omission".

June 23: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission files
lawsuit against CBA, accusing it of improperly collecting
commission to sell products of its pension arm, Colonial First
State Investments, to hundreds of thousands of customers.

July 8: Australian banks extend the loan repayment deferral period
to 10 months from six for borrowers struggling to service their
debts due to the pandemic.

July 17: Westpac launches a multi-year programme to fix
shortcomings in its management of non-financial risk.

Aug. 4: Australian lenders defer a further A$40 billion loans in
June.

Aug. 12: CBA slashes its annual dividend by more than half to the
maximum payout allowed by regulators.

Aug. 31: NAB sells its financial advisory arm to IOOF Holdings for
A$1.4 billion.

Sept. 24: Westpac agrees to pay a record A$1.3 billion fine to
settle money laundering lawsuit.

Oct. 14: Westpac exits banking operations in China and some other
Asian markets.

Oct. 26: Westpac flags a A$1.22 billion hit to cash earnings in the
second half.

Oct. 27: ANZ expects to take an after-tax hit of A$528 million to
its cash profit in the second half.

Nov. 2: Westpac to resume paying dividends as it reports a 62%
plunge in cash earnings.

Nov. 5: NAB posts a 36.6% fall in annual profit, and warns that
costs would keep rising in the next few years.

Dec. 2: Westpac says it will sell its general insurance arm to
German insurer Allianz for A$725 million.

Dec. 7: Westpac sells its Pacific businesses in Fiji and Papua New
Guinea for up to A$420 million.

Dec. 23: ASIC says it will not take any action against Westpac in
the illegal payments probe. [GN]



[*] Corporations to Spend $2.73 Billion on Class Actions in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicja Grzadkowska, writing for Insurance Business America, reports
that the directors and officers (D&O) insurance marketplace may
have seen significant price increases this year, but the challenges
in the line of business started long before the coronavirus
pandemic hit.

"Generally, before COVID, the market was already hardening in terms
of increasing costs, and the reason why is because there has been
an incredible increase in litigation and related costs, and the
cost of D&O insurance just hasn't been keeping up with it," said
Heather Fong-Quade, head of product development for financial lines
at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS). "The carrier losses
have increased, and then also the [litigation] costs themselves
have increased."

While the cost of litigation varies from company to company, many
estimates point to firms spending billions of dollars annually on
lawsuits. For instance, according to the 2020 Carlton Fields Class
Action Survey, corporations spent $2.46 billion on class action
litigation in 2018 and $2.64 billion in 2019. The report projects
that for this year, corporations will spend $2.73 billion on class
action suits, and that in-house legal spend will continue to climb
in the coming years because of the coronavirus and new data privacy
laws.

Read more: Professional liability risks pile up during the pandemic
at https://bit.ly/3507kUL

Given this financial pressure, it was no surprise that the cost of
D&O insurance spiked, regardless of the current pandemic situation,
explained Fong-Quade, adding that the E&O market has seen similar
changes for certain types of insureds. "That again has to do with
the frequency and severity of the losses having increased over
time, and the market hasn't kept up," she said.

Additionally, on the carrier side, low interest rates have meant
that carriers have been earning less on their own investments, so
there was going to be a breaking point where they couldn't keep up
with the losses, noted the AGCS expert -- a breaking point that the
market had hit already before the pandemic.

Carriers, including AGCS, were re-examining their limits and
management strategies for D&O to adapt to the headwinds. At the
same time, event-driven litigation, such as the #MeToo movement and
diversity suit litigation, as well as excessive fee litigation,
were growing in numbers.

Today, says Fong-Quade, "More and more insureds are looking at D&O
as defense cost coverage, because a lot of times these cases are
not going all the way to court, but the defense costs themselves
are increasing as litigation increases. It's also becoming a lot
more complex, especially now that we have e-vendors and all sorts
of data mining that has to be done in terms of discovery on cases,
and that has increased the cost of litigation."

The impact of COVID-19 on future litigation will, meanwhile, be
significant. After all, whenever there are restrictions, like the
current lockdowns, within the economy, companies are going to see
problems with their distribution chains -- and because COVID is a
global pandemic, there's been a lot of disruption in the supply
chains, "which always leads to litigation," said Fong-Quade. In the
case of the pandemic, the costlier lawsuits aren't necessarily
going to come from individuals suing firms.

"What happens with stuff like COVID is that you start seeing
business partners having disputes with you. Those can get a lot
more contentious and a lot pricier," continued Fong-Quade. "They're
also a lot more personal and people are less willing to settle them
… so we expect the COVID-19 disruptions to continue to increase
the litigation that's out there." [GN]


[*] Law Firms Expect Rise in COVID-Related Litigation in 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobby, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that from
class actions over flight cancellations to business disputes over
pandemic-related disruptions and continued insolvency filings by
distressed companies, experts predict a rise in litigation in
2021.

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, courts across Canada
effectively shut down, hearing only emergency matters. But as the
months went on and the legal system was forced to adapt, courts
shifted to virtual hearings and electronic filing of documents. In
many provinces, long-planned but never-delivered digital upgrades
were suddenly slapped into place and litigation started to return
to something like normal.

Many businesses turned to private arbitration during the height of
the COVID-19 shutdowns and court delays, and while that trend is
likely to continue, lawyers say the courts will also be busy next
year.

"Given the anticipated economic challenges, we expect that 2021
will be a busy year for litigation and that many businesses will be
forced to litigate business-critical disputes," wrote the law firm
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in a year-end publication.

"The experience of 2020 has confirmed that, even if there are court
closures and other shutdowns, litigation can still proceed
effectively in a virtual setting to meet the needs of businesses in
Canada."

Osler noted that the pandemic has already led to dozens of
class-action filings in Canada. Reidar Mogerman, a partner at
Vancouver-based Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP, says more such
cases, where plaintiffs band together to allege mass wrongs were
committed by one defendant, are on the horizon.

"COVID-related claims will be coming as the legal system tries to
adjust to these massive shifts in our economy. Many of those shifts
affect large groups of people," said Mr. Mogerman, whose firm acts
on behalf of plaintiffs in class actions. "Think of businesses that
have common insurance policies, people whose travel was cancelled.
Any large group of people that has a common story where there's
been a financial adjustment is going to think about a class
action."

He also points to a recent landmark settlement with Microsoft that
his firm was involved in as a sign that interest in class actions
is likely to grow. Camp Fiorante was one of three law firms that
acted for plaintiffs over claims of price fixing related to the
purchase of certain PC software products between 1998 and 2010.

The tech giant did not admit wrongdoing but will pay members of the
class up to $517-million, or about $400-million after legal fees
and expenses are deducted. Under the claims process that began in
November, individual consumers who bought genuine Microsoft
software, or a computer preloaded with it, can claim up to $250
without showing a receipt.

"As a procedural vehicle, the class action allowed millions of
Canadians to come together in a single action and pursue a case
against Microsoft that ended in a significant settlement," Mr.
Mogerman said. "That historic experience, I think, has meant more
and more people are aware of class actions, more and more lawyers
are interested in bringing them."

Securities class actions filed by investors in a company's stock
who allege violations of securities laws could also be on the rise.
In a year-end outlook, the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
points to the cannabis market as a flashpoint for such lawsuits in
recent years, noting the widespread optimism and opportunities that
came from the legalization of marijuana in 2018.

"Since that time, the industry has been subject to significant
restrictions and oversight by securities regulators and licensing
authorities. Consequently, the volatility of the market, along with
the dashed dreams of many investors, has caught a number of
industry players in a web of litigation," the Cassels report said.

The firm predicts publicly traded cannabis companies "will continue
to attract intense scrutiny from regulators and participants in the
public markets."

Another issue class-action lawyers will confront in 2021 is new
legislation in Ontario that came into effect in October and
provides for a more restrictive test for certifying a class action,
a crucial preliminary step for a case to proceed.

"Ontario now stands out as having a different set of rules," Mr.
Mogerman said, predicting that more cases will now be filed in
jurisdictions seen as more friendly to plaintiffs, such as British
Columbia.

Finally, major Canadian corporations have largely avoided formal
insolvency proceedings so far, owing in part to government aid such
as wage subsidies and rent-relief programs as well as patience on
the part of lenders. Still, formal insolvency proceedings under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) were up almost 40 per
cent in the first three quarters of 2020 as 68 businesses filed for
protection.

That trend is likely to continue next year, according to Torys LLP,
which wrote in a recent publication: "COVID-19 has precipitated the
insolvency of some companies in precarious positions. As the
pandemic continues, healthy businesses with stronger balance sheets
may also be forced to resort to CCAA protection." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***