/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210106.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 6, 2021, Vol. 23, No. -1

                            Headlines

A10 CAPITAL: Washington Court Dismisses Amended Fruci Complaint
ABITINO'S PIZZA: Siguencia Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
ALDI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Underfilled" Coffee
ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 12 Deadline
AMERICAN GENERAL: LSIMC Sues Over Insurance Interest Underpayment

AMERICAN HOME: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Security Workers, Forrester Claims
ANTHEM INC: Fortier Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Circuit
ANYTIME TOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Moore Alleges
APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Processor Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir.
BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
BERRY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline
BHS MANAGEMENT: Coviello Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans
BILL'S ELECTRIC: Underpays Master Electricians, Barker Suit Claims

BIOGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Waters ERISA Suit on Inadequate COBRA Notice
BLISSY LLC: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA
BOKER USA: Angeles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Alexander Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 4th Cir.
CD PROJEKT: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline
CITIZENS BANK: $612K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Kondash Suit

CLARA CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
COINBASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sale of XRP Cryptocurrency
COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Listing of XRP Tokens
COLORADO: Judge Tosses ACLU Class Action Against Governor Polis
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Under Appeal
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Class Action Stayed
DAIMLER AG: Settlement in Vancouver Alumni Suit Gets Final Approval

DEL MAR, CA: Bid to Amend Hedayatzadeh Suit to Add Plaintiff Denied
DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Encampments to Continue
DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bessette Suit Alleges
DOW JONES: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Suit Says
EL TORITO: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Ruling in FCRA Suit to Ninth Cir.
FANTASY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class in Fischer Gets Conditional Certification
FIRST AMERICAN: Abdelrasoul Ruling in Breach Suit to 9th Cir.
FIRST AMERICAN: Campbell Ruling in Contract Breach Suit to 9th Cir.

FIRST AMERICAN: Dinh Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 9th Cir.
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline
GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Demeritte Says
GLOCK INC: Johnson Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gonzales Says

GREAT AMERICAN: Davis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers
GREGORYS COFFEE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Bakers, De Jesus Claims
GRIDDLE INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HAIYING REN: Wang Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
HANNA ANDERSSON: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of Breach Settlement

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Clinic Slams Denied COVID Loss Claims
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Seeks 6th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit
HISTORIC IMAGES: Buren et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime
HOMES.COM INC: Pierucci TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend

HONDA MOTOR: Settles 5-Speed Transmission Class Action Lawsuit
HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending
HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway
HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal
HP INC: York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop Ongoing

IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
IDT CORP: Samara Putative Class Suit Dismissed
IDT CORP: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit
INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
INTERFACE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Amended Ponzo Complaint Tossed; May Replead
JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says
K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline

KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Underway
KMI INDUSTRIAL: BakerHostetler Discusses CAFA Removal Standards
LA FONDA REST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Arias Suit Says
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gathmann-Landini Class Action Settled

LVNV FUNDING: Class Certification Ruling in Davis Suit Reversed
MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Allows Consumer Class Suit to Proceed
MDL 2573: Counterparties' Contact Info to Be Given to Rust Inc.
MDL 2968: Initial Meeting in Generali Travel Suit Set for Jan. 28
MDL 2984: Ashton Seeks Transfer of 5 Consumer Suits to C.D. Cal.

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Class Action Dismissed
MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona Underway
MIDLAND CREDIT: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Jacobs Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
MORGAN STANLEY: Financial Advisors Sues Over Deferred Compensation

NAVIHEALTH INC: Settlement in Bentley Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending
NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
NEONODE INC: Purported Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Dismissed
NEOVASC INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline

NESTLE WATERS: Chong Ruling in Product Liability Suit to 9th Cir.
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Pays $125,000 to Woods Counsel as Attorneys' Fees
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Securities Class Actions in New York
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 2 Deadline
ONEKIND.25 INC: Conner Asserts Breach of ADA
ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Action Certification Ruling Upheld
PEPPER & PEACH: Brown et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming

PINTEREST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 21 Deadline
POWER & ENERGY: Faces Peters Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRESSED JUICERY: Faces Tunkett Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Facing Aniello Putative Class Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Tosses Amended Securities Suit

PRUITHEALTH INC: Underpays Health Care Workers, Coley Suit Claims
RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges
RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline
RNT TAVERN: Maystrenko Alleges Discrimination at Ladies Bar Events
SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Consolidate Duplicative Suits Granted
SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending
SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway

SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in CA Consumer Class Suit
SARGENTO FOODS: Phan Sues Over Mislabeled Dairy Cheese Products
SCRANTON SEWER: Gets Closer to Dissolving After Class Settlement
SOCIAL RESTAURANT: Connery-Thomas Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
SPEEDY CASH: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Delisle Consumer Suit

SPLUNK INC: Facing Putative Class Action in California
SPLUNK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
STOCKX INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Data Security Breach Suit
STRATEGIC SECURITY: Hinojosa Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING: Misclassifies Workers, Farias et al. Say

SUBARU CORP: Warranty Claims in Cracked Windshield Suit Dismissed
SWEET COFFEE: Faces Salamanca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Junked
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
TOTAL TANK: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Barr Suit Claims

TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Moore Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TWIN RIVER: Ruotolo Sues Over Casino Staff's Unpaid Wages
UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Suit Concluded

UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Sues Over Breach of Contractual Duties
UNITED STATES: Peltier Alleges Pembina Judgment Fund Mismanagement
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Hirsch Ruling in TCPA Suit to Fifth Circuit
VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending

VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere's Appeal From Voluntary Dismissal Nixed
VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Class Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Securities Suit Removed to District of Utah
WALMART INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Data Breach Lawsuit
WEB TO DOOR: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

WORLD FINANCIAL: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CASF
YRC INC: Alvarez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit
ZINUS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Suit Says
[*] Michigan AG's Office Negotiated Historic Settlements in 2020

                            *********

A10 CAPITAL: Washington Court Dismisses Amended Fruci Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRUCI & ASSOCIATES, PS, for itself and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated businesses and individuals, Plaintiff
v. A10 CAPITAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C20-864 RSM (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle:

    (i) granted Defendant Sound Community Bank and Washington
        Trust Bank's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for
        Failure to State a Claim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
        and 12(b)(6);

   (ii) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended
        Complaint; and

  (iii) denied as moot Defendant Mountain West Bank's Motion to
        Dismiss Amended Complaint Under FRCP 12(b)(1).

The case presents the Court with a novel legal claim arising out of
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the
Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") that it created.  The Plaintiff
asserts that it acted as an agent for loan applicants seeking loans
from the Defendant banks under the PPP and that it is therefore
entitled to "agent fees" that the banks have not paid.  To date, at
least 10 courts have dismissed claims similar to the Plaintiff's
after finding them insufficiently plead or lacking an adequate
legal basis.

The Plaintiff initiated the action against 11 Defendant banks which
acted as lenders under the PPP for agent fees, the Defendants
allegedly owed the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff did not lodge separate
allegations as to each Defendant.  Rather, in the parts most
relevant to the motion, it makes allegations, based on its
"information and belief," against all of them.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants funded PPP loans for
Borrowers represented by the Plaintiff and the proposed Class,
received their Lender Fees from the Federal Government, and failed
to pay the Agent Fees earned by the Plaintiff and proposed Class
out of the Lender Fees received.  The Defendants have either failed
and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage
of, the monies owed in Agent Fees to the Plaintiff and the proposed
Class, thus, retaining for themselves all of the statutory fees
allotted by the Government for Agents as part of the PPP despite
the work performed by the Agents in assisting the Borrowers in
securing their PPP loans.

The matter is before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by the
Defendants that have appeared in the action.

Judge Martinez finds that even under the more liberal standards of
the standing inquiry, the Plaintiff fails to establish standing in
the matter.  He concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged
an injury in fact as it has alleged that the Defendant banks have
not paid it funds that it is entitled to.  These simple allegations
are sufficient, Judge Martinez finds.  The Plaintiff cannot,
however, establish causation and redressability.  Its allegations
fail to establish that it represented applicants receiving PPP
loans or that those applicants obtained funding from the Defendant
banks.  As such, the Plaintiff's allegations do not establish
whether these Defendants--or other lenders--have caused the
Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

Judge Martinez finds opines that the Plaintiff's failure to
adequately establish causation dooms its arguments for
redressability.  Even if it proves its legal claims, it does not
establish that it has brought the proper lenders before the Court
such that the Plaintiff's injuries can be redressed.  As the
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint fails to allege facts
giving rise to standing, it must be dismissed.

Having failed to establish standing, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint also fails under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)'s plausibility standard.  The
Plaintiff has failed to make factual allegations supporting the
plausibility of its alleged claims.  Its Amended Class Action
Complaint establishes the possibility that the Defendant banks may
be liable to the Plaintiff, but lacks allegations establishing why
the Defendant banks' liability is plausible.

Having found that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the
Defendant banks are responsible for its alleged harms, the Judge
does not consider the Plaintiff's additional legal claims
separately.  Those claims fail on account of the same inadequate
pleading.

In addition to joining a motion to dismiss, Defendant Mountain West
Bank files a separate motion seeking dismissal on the basis that
the Plaintiff's claims are not ripe.  However, it indicates that
the Court need not reach the motion unless it denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  As the Judge grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, he denies Defendant Mountain West Bank's motion
as moot.

Finally, the Plaintiff has amended its complaint once as a matter
of right.  It has requested that if the Court dismisses the action
"in full or in part" that it be granted leave to amend to file a
second amended Complaint.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff may
be able to allege additional facts, consistent with the challenged
pleading, which could survive dismissal.  Accordingly, he grants
the Plaintiff leave to amend.

Having reviewed the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the briefing of
the parties, the supplemental authorities, and the remainder of the
record, Judge Martinez (i) granted Sound Community and Washington
Trust's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; (ii) granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; and (iii) denied
as moot Defendant Mountain West Bank's Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.  Within 30 days of the
date of the Order, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
curing the deficiencies identified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yak8e4cw from Leagle.com.


ABITINO'S PIZZA: Siguencia Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO SIGUENCIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. ABITINO'S PIZZA 49TH STREET
CORP. d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, ABITINO'S PIZZA & RESTAURANT, INC.
NO. II d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, ABITINO'S JFK LLC d/b/a ABITINO'S
PIZZERIA, MAMMA ANNA 730 LLC d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, MARIO
ABITINO SR., MARIO ABITINO JR., SALVATORE ABITINO, and DOMINICO
ABITINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10761 (S.D.N.Y., December 21,
2020) brings this class and collective action complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff as hired by the Defendants to work as a delivery
person in or around March 2019 until in or around April 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked 42 hours per week for
the Defendants. Although he received a paycheck on a weekly basis
throughout his employment with the Defendants, every single check
he received from the Defendants bounced. As a result, he did not
receive any wages for all his hours worked. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide him with proper wage notices at hiring
and annually thereafter, and failed to provide him itemized
listings of deductions taken on a wage statement with every payment
of wages.

The Corporate Defendants operate a chain of pizzerias as a single
integrated enterprise under the trade name "Abitino's Pizzeria",
commonly owned and operated by the individual Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALDI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Underfilled" Coffee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gordon, Esq., of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that iast week, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Aldi Inc. regarding certain Beaumont Coffee products sold
in its stores. According to the complaint, the packaging for the
coffee product states that a single package will make "Up to 210 6
oz Cups." According to package instructions, the plaintiffs assert
that a single serving consists of one tablespoon of ground coffee
and one serving of water. To make the advertised 210 servings, the
plaintiffs allege that the package would need to contain 210
tablespoons of ground coffee, not the 137 tablespoons contained in
the purchased package.

When compared to the advertised cups of coffee available to be made
with this product, the plaintiffs allege that the product is
underfilled by over 34%. Despite one of the named defendants
residing in Illinois, and the complaint being filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint
alleges that the packaging constitutes false advertising pursuant
to several California and New York unfair or deceptive acts or
practices statutes, including the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.

Takeaway: Most slack fill cases involve allegations that a product
contains too much empty space commensurate with the overall package
size. In this case, however, the plaintiffs allege that the package
is underfilled based on the claims of contained on the package
itself. Advertisers that make claims about number of servings per
package should ensure that such claims match with the instructions
and nutrition facts label. [GN]


ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BABA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 20-cv-10267, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba securities between July 20,
2020 and November 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alibaba securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 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.

[Click https://bit.ly/3pMM8JK for information about joining the
class action]

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 payments 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 complaint 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: (i) Ant Group did not meet
listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain
material matters; (ii) certain impending changes in the Fintech
regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to
be suspended; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On 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 indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article
also included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement
the meeting opinions in depth."

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 American Depository Share price fell $25.27
per share, or 8%, to close at $285.57 per share on November 3,
2020, on unusually heavy 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]



AMERICAN GENERAL: LSIMC Sues Over Insurance Interest Underpayment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LSIMC, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-11518
(C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendant has cheated
Plaintiff and other owners of life insurance policies issued in
California out of tens of millions of dollars by deliberately
under-paying interest owed on amounts deposited with AmGen in
violation of the terms of their standardized form contracts.

The complaint contends that AmGen has breached the terms of the
policies by redetermining credited rates based on factors other
than its expectations of future investment earnings. For at least
the past four years, AmGen has redetermined the credited interest
rates on Plaintiff's policy at 3.0% -- which is the guaranteed
minimum set forth in the policy -- despite changes in AmGen's
expectations of future investment earnings amidst dramatic
fluctuations in the Treasuries, bonds, equities, and other assets
in which AmGen invests policyholder account value.

American General Life Insurance Company is life insurance company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150     
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com

AMERICAN HOME: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HOME IMPROVEMENT INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-11506 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on her cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or
around October 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The
Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS) in placing its calls that were not for emergency purposes
without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive such ATDS calls.

Due to the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was harmed
and suffered damages by incurring certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which she previously paid, and invading her
privacy, the suit says.

American Home Improvement Inc. is a home renovation company. [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


AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Security Workers, Forrester Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHA FORRESTER, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SECURITY AND PROTECTION SERVICE
LLC, and F. MICHAEL JONES, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00204-TBR
(W.D. Ky., December 22, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendants seeking unpaid wages and damages for
their alleged unlawful pay practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
non-exempt security worker from approximately March to November
2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not compensate him and
other similarly situated security workers for the 10-15 minutes
pre-shift and post-shift duties they performed which are
indispensable and integral part of their principal duties. Although
they routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek, they were not
paid overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40
each workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the unpaid work performed by its security
workers.

American Security and Protection Service LLC provides various
security services in multiple states, with regional offices located
in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Georgia. F. Michael Jones is the
owner, operator, Chairman, and CEO of the corporate Defendant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Tel: (614) 824-5770
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Fortier Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marie Fortier filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in her lawsuit entitled MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC., ANTHEM UM
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04952-MCS-MAA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action brought by the Plaintiff to address Anthem's practice of
improperly denying claims for percutaneous neuromodulation therapy
devices made by members under Anthem plans.

According to the complaint, Anthem Inc. acts as a fully integrated
company that is in the business of insuring and/or administering
group health plans within the meaning of 29 Code of Federal
Regulations, most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Those
ERISA-governed group health plans are hereinafter referred to as
"Anthem plans."

Ms. Fortier seeks to review the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2020,
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Marie Fortier v. Anthem, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 20-56361, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Marie Fortier Mediation Questionnaire was due on
December 29, 2020;

   -- Appellant Marie Fortier opening brief is due on February 19,
2021;

   -- Appellees Anthem UM Services, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. answering
brief is due on March 22, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Jorge Barrio, Esq.
          Robert Steven Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq., Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS ALC
          550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          E-mail: adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
                  rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Martin Nebrida Buchanan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN N. BUCHANAN
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-2426
          E-mail: martin@martinbuchanan.com   

Defendants-Appellees ANTHEM, INC. and ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC. are
represented by:

          Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          301 S. College Street, Suite 3400
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 998-4050
          E-mail: virginia.flynn@troutman.com   

               - and -

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 509-6000
          E-mail: chad.fuller@troutman.com
                  jessica.lohr@troutman.com

ANYTIME TOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Moore Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MOORE, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
ANYTIME TOWING & RECOVERY, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00540-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn.,
December 21, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against
the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation and damages for its alleged violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a vehicle driver.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and
other similarly situated drivers at least the minimum wage rate of
$7.25 per hour for all hours they worked within weekly pay periods
and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week. The
Defendant allegedly compensated them only at a percentage of the
Company's tow and recovery charges to customers, and pay their
overtime hours at the same rate of pay as it paid them for hours
under 40 per week. Moreover, the Defendant failed to record all the
hours they worked and failed to keep proper time and payroll
records.

Anytime Towing & Recovery, LLC owns and operates a mixture of
larger tow trucks and smaller "snatch" trucks which tows and
recovers vehicles in Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
             OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Processor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: APPLE PROCESSOR LITIGATION, ANTHONY BARTLING;
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 19-16720 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacates in part the district court's order granting
Apple's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and remands for
further proceedings.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are purchasers of Apple
products who assert various state-law causes of action for consumer
fraud, unfair practices, and unjust enrichment.  They allege that
Apple failed to disclose that their devices were potentially
vulnerable to hacking and that the patches Apple applied to address
the vulnerabilities degraded the devices' performance.  The
district court granted Apple's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for
lack of standing.

The Ninth Circuit notes that the allegations in the operative
complaint that the Plaintiffs' devices declined in resale value
after Apple announced the vulnerabilities and installed the
patches, suffice to plead an economic injury that is concrete and
particularized.  The complaint alleges that a regression analysis
of 76,000 transactions in the secondary smartphone market showed a
decline in the value of devices owned by the Plaintiffs after the
announcement of the vulnerabilities and patching, and concluded
that the decline was caused by these events.  Whatever the merits
or eventual admissibility of the analysis at the pleading stage, it
provides a metric from which an effect on the resale value of the
Plaintiffs' devices can be plausibly inferred.

Assuming Apple's alleged actions and omissions give rise to a claim
upon which relief can be granted, an issue the district court
pretermitted, the alleged injury is "fairly traceable" to that
conduct, according to the Memorandum.  Other factors may have
caused the decline in value, but the Plaintiffs allege that the
regression analysis controlled for such factors, an allegation that
the Court must accept at this stage.  And, their claimed injury, if
proved, would be redressable through damages.

Although the Court can affirm the dismissal upon any basis fairly
supported by the record, it declines to address Apple's Rule
12(b)(6) arguments in the first instance, leaving that task to the
district court on remand.

Circuit Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima dissented.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaint is summarized by the
majority as their allegation "that Apple failed to disclose that
[Plaintiffs'] devices were potentially vulnerable to hacking and
that the patches Apple applied to address the vulnerabilities
degraded the devices' performance."

Judge Tashima notes that the majority concludes that this
allegation is sufficient to show that the Plaintiffs "suffered an
injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." He disagrees. To begin,
he opines, that the Plaintiffs' "devices were potentially
vulnerable to hacking" is not an actual injury that is concrete and
particularized. He insists that every device is potentially
vulnerable to hacking. It is, rather, conjectural and hypothetical,
not concrete and particularized.

The Plaintiffs' complaint does not tell us whether leaving the
devices vulnerable to hacking, without patches, would or would not
also result in a decline in resale value and, if so, by how much,
Judge Tashima writes. He concludes, as did the district court, that
the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege an injury in fact.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycqajjdy from Leagle.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Du'Bois A. Crockrom filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated November 17, 2020, and Judgment
dated November 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled DU'BOIS A.
CROCKROM, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Case No. 20-cv-13, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
J. Paul Oetken entered an Order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2); and

   2. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
      Rule 12(b)(6); and

   3. directing the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The Court said the Plaintiff argues his noncompliance with the
Deposit Agreement's notice provision should be excused because BANA
materially breached the Deposit Agreement by assessing the
overdraft fees. The Plaintiff does not explain, however, why BANA's
coding errors -- events that the Deposit Agreement acknowledges may
occur -- and the resulting overdraft fees rise to the level of a
material breach, or a breach "so substantial that it defeats the
object of the parties in making the contract." In enforcing the
Deposit Agreement's notice requirement, the Court follows a
well-trodden path. New York courts regularly deny relief to
account-holders who "failed to timely notify the defendant [of a
problem] as required by the agreement of the parties."

The Plaintiff Du'Bois A. Crockrom brings this putative class action
against the Defendants, claiming that Defendants breached their
Deposit Agreement for personal deposit accounts. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants assessed overdraft fees for his
and other account-holders' non-recurring purchases, in
contravention of "the express terms of the Deposit Agreement."

Mr. Crockrom is seeking an appeal to review the above order by
Judge Oetken.

The appellate case is captioned as Crockrom v. Bank of America,
N.A., Case No. 20-4197, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Du'Bois A. Crockrom, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas K. Landry, Esq.
          LANDRY LAW
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 349-2900
          E-mail: tklandry@landrylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America
Corporation are represented by:

          Angela Aziza Smedley, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          E-mail: asmedley@winston.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN WALDEN and LESLIE WALDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION and BNY MELLON, N.A., Case No. 20-1972 (W.D. Pa., Dec.
21, 2020) is a class action arising out of BNY Mellon's multiple
breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs and
similarly-situated bank customers, BNY Corp.'s aiding and abetting
of the bank's breaches, and both Defendants' breach of contract and
deceptive trade practices.

The Plaintiffs and the other Class members are current and former
customers of BNY Mellon's wealth management division, each of whom
transferred funds to BNY Mellon and entrusted the Bank to invest
those funds at the bank's prudent discretion.

According to the complaint, instead of offering unbiased services
pursuant to a fiduciary standard, BNY Mellon abandoned its
fiduciary duties and, instead, advanced its own financial interests
over those of its clients, improperly used client assets to
purchase preselected, affiliated, and conflicted mutual funds and
other investment vehicles that BNY Corp. or its affiliates managed,
issued, or sponsored, or to which it was otherwise financially
related. BNY Mellon selected these funds not because they were
based on independent assessments of its clients' best interests,
but rather to enrich itself and its affiliates.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, commonly known as BNY
Mellon, is an American investment banking services holding company
headquartered in New York City.

BNY Mellon, National Association provides banking services. The
Company offers institutional asset management, mutual funds,
private wealth management, asset servicing, human resources,
investor solutions, and treasury services. BNY Mellon serves
clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: rfdicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  jhawal@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          1101 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 975-2288
          E-mail: bbernstein@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Councill, Esq.
          Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq.
          COUNCILL & GUNNEMANN LLC
          1201 Peachtree Street N.E. Building 400, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 407-5250
          E-mail: scouncill@cogunn.com
                  jgunnemann@cogunn.com

BERRY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Berry Corporation ("Berry" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:BRY)
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's July 26, 2018 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), or between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the
firm before January 21, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/35dySG6 to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, 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. Berry overstated both its operational
efficiency and stability. The Company's poor efficiency and
instability would eventually require significant operational
improvements that would raise costs and disrupt operations. These
required improvements would negatively impact the Company's
revenues. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements and
Offering Documents were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Berry,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


BHS MANAGEMENT: Coviello Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW W. COVIELLO; NATHAN BYRNE; and VICTORIA HALSTED,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-30198-KAR (D. Mass., Dec. 30, 2020) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during December 30,
2014 through the date of judgment, the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the BHS Partnership 403(b) Pension
Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs,
and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1)
failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment
options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and
(3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of ERISA.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the
suit says.

BHS Management Services, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides various health care
management, facilities, administrative and technical support
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Hellman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC
          195 Church Street, 10th Floor
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 691-8762
          Facsimile: (203) 823-4401
          E-mail: jeff@jeffhallmanlaw.com

               -and-

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               -and-

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com


BILL'S ELECTRIC: Underpays Master Electricians, Barker Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BILL'S ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-05225-PKH (W.D. Tex., December 21, 2020) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
master electrician from December 2017 to December 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that he was not properly compensated by the
Defendant for all hours he worked despite he regularly worked over
40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant did not include
the 10 to 45 minutes which it required him and other similarly
situated master electricians to perform work for the Defendant
before they are allowed to clock in. Although their hours worked
were recorded via an electronic time clock, which logged their
hours into a payroll system maintained by the Defendant, the
Defendant rounded their hours down in 15 minutes increments. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly paid
master electricians' lawfully earned overtime compensation were not
properly paid by the Defendant at the applicable overtime rate
required by law.

Bill's Electric, Inc. offers electrical design, installation and
maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (800) 615-4946
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BIOGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 30 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ)Class Period: November 6, 2015 - June 21,
2016Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021

The HPQ lawsuit alleges HP Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class
period that: (a) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers that did
not need or want the product in order to artificially increase
revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel inventory management and
sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers
outside of designated regions at unsustainable discounts in order
to artificially increase revenues and profits; (c) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies at steep discounts to customers to encourage those
customers to sell the supplies further down the supply channel, out
of HP's inventory management metrics; and (d) as a result of
(a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about HP's business condition
and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.

Learn about your recoverable losses in HPQ:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=11861&from=1

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November
6, 2019Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

During the class period, Biogen Inc. allegedly made materially
false and/or 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 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in BIIB:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11861&from=1

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)Class Period: December
21, 2017 - November 25, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2,
2021

The NAK lawsuit alleges that Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in NAK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=11861&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

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 Building350 Fifth Avenue59th
FloorNew York, NY 10118jk@kleinstocklaw.comTelephone: (212)
616-4899Fax: (347) 558-9665www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Waters ERISA Suit on Inadequate COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
THADDEUS WATERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-03064 (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to provide
the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of their right
to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, the plan sponsor and
plan administrator of the BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Team Member
Benefit Plan, has repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to provide participants and
beneficiaries in the plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by
COBRA, of their right to continue their health insurance coverage
following an occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the
statute.

The Plaintiff was a participant in the plan prior to her
termination, a qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1163(2).

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. operates as a warehouse club. The Company
provides electronics, furniture, fitness, video games, health,
toys, home decor, computers, landscaping, jewelry, and grocery
products. BJ's Wholesale Club serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

BLISSY LLC: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Blissy LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta
Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Blissy LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06304 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 29, 2020).

Blissy sells 100% Pure Mulberry Silk Pillowcase made of the highest
quality 22-Momme silk materials.[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



BOKER USA: Angeles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOKER USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10760-MKV (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Right Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by her and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

When the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's Website,
www.bokerusa.com, on multiple occasions to make a purchase, the
last occurring in December 2020, she was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual because the
Defendant's Website allegedly lacked of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred her from being able to
determine what specific products were offered for sale.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website. Moreover, the Defendant failed to take any prompt
and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory conduct.

The Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction
requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its
Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the
ADA; compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof,
including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines;
pre- and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' and expert
fees; and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Boker USA, Inc. is a knife manufacturing company that owns and
operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX)

Investors Affected: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Boston Scientific Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened
the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii) as a
result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=11874&from=1

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)

Investors Affected: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11874&from=1

Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)

Investors Affected: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Restaurant Brands International Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's 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 the Company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11874&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BSX) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05894, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Boston Scientific securities
between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Boston Scientific securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 2, 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.

[Click https://bit.ly/3otfWep for information about joining the
class action]

Boston Scientific develops, manufactures, and markets medical
devices for use in various interventional medical specialties
worldwide. The Company's products include, among others, the LOTUS
Edge Aortic Valve System, which is a Transcatheter Aortic Valve
Replacement ("TAVR") product. Boston Scientific announced the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") approval for the LOTUS Edge
Aortic Valve System in April 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened
the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii) as a
result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 17, 2020, Boston Scientific announced a global recall
of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System,
citing "complexities associated with the product delivery system."
Boston Scientific further announced that "[g]iven the additional
time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced
delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire LOTUS
product platform immediately."

On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020.

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]


BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ESPINOZA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR, INC., and MAGNO
VELESACA, as an individual, arises from the Defendants' violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members required overtime
wages, failing to provide a written notice and recordkeeping, and
failing to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July
2019 until in or around July 2020 whose primary duties were
construction work and other miscellaneous duties.

The Brother's Contractor, Inc. is a construction company in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Alexander Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ashly Alexander, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ASHLY ALEXANDER and CEDRIC
BISHOP, on behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02369-RDB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Richard
D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Dec.
11, 2020.

Plaintiffs Alexander and Bishop bring the putative class action on
behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons
against their mortgage servicer, Defendant Carrington. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly charged them a $5
fee to make their mortgage payments online, in violation of: (1)
the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act (Count I), (2) the prohibitions against usury found
in Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 12-105(d) (Count II) and, in the
alternative, (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Count
III).

The Plaintiffs seek an appeal to review the said order by Judge
Bennett.

The appellate case is captioned as Ashly Alexander v. Carrington
Mortgage Services, Case No. 20-2359, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 1, 2021; and

   -- Response Brief is due on March 3, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ASHLY ALEXANDER and CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf
of themselves individually and similarly situated persons, are
represented by:

          Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          8737 Colesville Road
          Silver Spring, MD 20910-0000
          Telephone: (301) 448-1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

Defendant-Appellee CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC is represented
by:

          Valerie L. Hletko, Esq.
          Scott T. Sakiyama, Esq.
          John Bell Williams, III, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          2001 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 349-8054
          E-mail: vhletko@buckleyfirm.com
                  ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com
                  jwilliams@buckleyfirm.com  

CD PROJEKT: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of CD Projekt
S.A. (OTC Pink: OTGLY) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in OTGLY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?id=11869&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that CD Projekt S.A. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false
and/or 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 Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, 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, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until February 22, 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 OTGLY 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]


CITIZENS BANK: $612K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Kondash Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARREN KONDASH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00288-WES-LDA (D.R.I.),
Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island recommended that the Court grants
the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses.

Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommended the following payments out of
the Settlement Fund: (i) reimbursement for costs and expenses of
$13,544.84; and (ii) attorney's fees for the Class Counsel of
$612,500, which amounts to one-third of the Settlement Fund.

The Class Counsel initiated the action in June 2018 alleging that
the Defendant made multiple prerecorded nonconsensual robocalls to
the cell phones of Class Representative/Plaintiff Kondash, and over
283,000 class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Following a period of contested discovery, the parties participated
in a mediation presided over by the Hon. Morton Denlow (ret.) of
JAMS.  The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement requiring
the creation of a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $1,837,500.
According to the settlement, the net Settlement Fund (after payment
of the costs of notice and administration and any award the Court
may make for attorney's fees and expenses to the Class Counsel and
an incentive award to the Class Representative) is to be allocated
among the class members who submit timely proofs of claim.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 2, 2020,
and, except for reserving regarding attorney's fees and expenses,
finally approved it by an Order that issued on Nov. 12, 2020.
Regarding the Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and
expenses, which was supported by the Declaration of Attorney
Alexander Burke, the Court directed the Class Counsel to supplement
his motion, including to provide additional information regarding
costs.

The Class Counsel complied and filed a supplemental brief and a
second Declaration of Attorney Alexander Burke.  The motion has
been referred to Magistrate Judge Sullivan for report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B).  The
motion seeks $612,500 as an award of attorney's fees based on
one-third of the Settlement Fund and expenses of $13,544.84.

The Magistrate Judge finds that the percentage method of
calculating the fee award should be the basis for payment of the
Class Counsel.  Mindful of the holistic factors listed in Loestrin
and the mimic-the-market approach used in Cabletron, she further
finds that one-third of the Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable and
appropriate compensation for the work done by the Class Counsel to
create the Settlement Fund.  For all of these reasons, she
recommends that the Court approves an attorney's fee for the Class
Counsel of $612,500, to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

Turning to the costs and expenses, the Magistrate Judge finds that
the most significant expense was almost $10,000 for the mediation,
which was presided over by a well-qualified JAMS-based retired
jurist.  Otherwise, the expenses are de minimis.  Importantly, in
recognition that it is a contingency engagement, the Class Counsel
did not include any of his or local counsel's overhead in the
requested amount.  Finding that the amount requested appears
reasonable, the Magistrate Judge recommends that all requested
expenses ($13,544.84) be approved for reimbursement from the
Settlement Fund.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommended that
the Court grants the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and approves the following payments
out of the Settlement Fund: (i) reimbursement for costs and
expenses of $13,544.84; and (ii) attorney's fees for the Class
Counsel of $612,500, which amounts to one-third of the Settlement
Fund.

Any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be specific and
must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days
of its receipt.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mxda4x from
Leagle.com.


CLARA CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARA CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11534
(C.D. Cal., December 21, 2020) brings this complaint as a class
action against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed a call
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083
beginning in or around February 2019. The Defendant allegedly used
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) or a spoofed
telephone number to mask its identity to avoid accountability from
placing illegal robocalls. The Defendant also did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such ATDS calls or
an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone.

In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008.

The Plaintiff claims that he was harmed and damaged by the
Defendant's unsolicited call by causing her to incur certain
charges or reduced telephone time for which she previously paid,
and invaded her privacy.

Clara Capital LLC 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


COINBASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sale of XRP Cryptocurrency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that a week after the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs and some of its
executives, alleging the company illegally skirted laws by
classifying its XRP cryptocurrency as a commodity rather than a
security, a Missouri man has sued Coinbase over its role selling
XRP.

Thomas Sandoval argued in his complaint that he and other investors
in XRP were denied adequate insight into the risks associated with
the investment because it wasn't treated as a security when it
should have been. He alleged Coinbase employees knew XRP was a
security when they facilitated trading in it -- transactions for
which Coinbase collected a commission. Sandoval's arguments closely
track those contained in a civil suit the SEC filed Dec. 22 against
Ripple Labs.

The government alleged in the complaint that Ripple Labs and some
executive raised $1.3 billion illegally since 2013 by calling XRP a
commodity when in reality it was more like a security, according to
a press release.

SEC Enforcement Division Director Stephanie Avakian said in the
release issued when the government's complaint was filed last week:
"Issuers seeking the benefits of a public offering, including
access to retail investors, broad distribution and a secondary
trading market, must comply with the federal securities laws that
require registration of offerings unless an exemption from
registration applies. We allege that Ripple, [Co-Founder Chris]
Larsen, and [CEO Brad] Garlinghouse failed to register their
ongoing offer and sale of billions of XRP to retail investors,
which deprived potential purchasers of adequate disclosures about
XRP and Ripple's business and other important long-standing
protections that are fundamental to our robust public market
system."

Marc P. Berger, deputy director of the SEC's Enforcement Division,
added in the release: "The registration requirements are designed
to ensure that potential investors -- including, importantly,
retail investors -- receive important information about an issuer's
business operations and financial condition. Here, we allege that
Ripple and its executives failed over a period of years to satisfy
these core investor protection provisions, and as a result,
investors lacked information to which they were entitled."

Garlinghouse said in an interview prior to the filing of the suit,
but anticipating it, that government litigation would be an
"attack" on all cryptocurrency and innovation.

Coinbase's chief legal officer issued a statement Monday (Dec. 28)
saying the company would suspend trading of XRP as of Jan. 19.
[GN]


COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Listing of XRP Tokens
--------------------------------------------------------------
coingeek.com reports that it has begun -- a Coinbase user has
initiated a class action suit against the cryptocurrency exchange,
seeking recovery for customers who paid commissions for XRP
trading. It claims Coinbase's actions in making XRP available for
trading violated California's unfair competition laws, and that
Coinbase was aware XRP constituted an unregistered security, rather
than a commodity digital asset.

Coinbase's actions were both unlawful and fraudulent, it adds.

Suit follows expected SEC action against Ripple, XRP

The class action follows the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC) advice that it plans to bring its own action
against XRP creators Ripple Labs, Inc. and two of its senior
executives. In response, exchanges such as Coinbase and OKCoin have
announced they will suspend XRP trading on their platforms in
January while the matter is being settled.

Both the SEC action and the private suit should serve as a warning
to digital asset exchanges that there are consequences for
improperly listing digital assets for customers to trade. It is
known that some in the Bitcoin BSV community are seeking to prove
in court that only BSV is Bitcoin, and others (such as BTC) is an
imposter and its promoters are engaging in illegal activity by
claiming the "Bitcoin" name. Should this eventuate, it is highly
likely to have flow-on effects similar to those Ripple Labs and
XRP-trading exchanges are beginning to see.

The new Coinbase suit was filed for plaintiff Thomas Sandoval of
Missouri (and others) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. It alleges that, based on Coinbase's
"technological integration into XRP's nodes" and statements made by
Ripple executives, the exchange would have known XRP was a security
and not a commodity.

Coinbase is "a commodities broker for cryptocurrencies," it reads,
and is not licensed to sell securities. As for XRP, its value (and
investors' potential profits) was "entirely linked to the success
or failure of Ripple Labs Inc. and the managerial actions of its
executives."

Why are people saying XRP is a security and not a commodity?

Allegations that XRP is an unregistered security and not a
commodity digital asset have been around for years. However, a
listing on a major digital asset trading platform can be seen as an
endorsement of its legitimacy. This matters whether trading
customers were aware of the allegations or not.

The suit continues that XRP is a security because Ripple "has sole
control over the purported cryptocurrency's nodes and is therefore
a common enterprise" under U.S. federal securities laws.
Furthermore, Ripple's existence as a corporation depended on the
sale of XRP tokens to the public, and it used income from this sale
to fund its operations.

It describes a node as a computer server that stores a ledger of
all an asset's transactions, and processes transactions. Ripple/XRP
therefore represents something different to other (non-security)
cryptocurrencies which use "decentralized nodes" not controlled by
any one company. This makes Ripple/XRP a "common enterprise" with a
single point of failure, a circumstance that does not exist with
other digital assets like Bitcoin.

As well as seeking recovery for any commissions paid to Coinbase
for XRP sales/trades, plaintiffs are also asking for compensatory
damages and legal costs. They are also demanding a trial by jury.

As Dr. Craig Wright has said in the past, the law may move slowly
on matters concerning blockchain and digital assets, but it will
catch up. Ripple and XRP have been around for over seven
years—and has been a prominent, high-trading-volume and top-five
listed asset for most of that time. By bringing its action against
Ripple, the SEC demonstrates it is interested in more than just
obscure ICO token scams, and that no name is too big to escape
regulatory scrutiny. The coming years are set to be definitive for
the digital asset industry in many ways, and compliance with the
law is set to be one of the most significant new changes.

Follow CoinGeek's Crypto Crime Cartel series, which delves into the
stream of groups -- from BitMEX to Binance, Bitcoin.com,
Blockstream, ShapeShift and Ethereum -- who have co-opted the
digital asset revolution and turned the industry into a minefield
for naïve (and even experienced) players in the market. [GN]



COLORADO: Judge Tosses ACLU Class Action Against Governor Polis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Haggard, writing for The Colorado Sun, reports that a judge
has dismissed a lawsuit demanding that Gov. Jared Polis take action
to reduce Colorado's prison population amid rising coronavirus
cases.

The ACLU of Colorado was incorrect in suing Polis over matters that
are more relevant to the Department of Corrections, Denver District
Court Judge Kandace Gerdes wrote in the ruling handed down on Dec.
24. The dismissal also stated that the court could not force the
governor to take action granted to him by the authority of the
executive branch, such as pardoning prisoners or commuting
sentences, and could not rule on the governor's lack of action.

As of Wednesday, Dec. 30, 7,125 prisoners have tested positive for
COVID-19 since the pandemic started; there are about 13,473 people
currently incarcerated. 24 have died during the pandemic -- four in
the past week alone.

"The court does not have the power to declare the governor's
alleged failure to act unconstitutional, as the decision to
exercise or refrain from exercising his constitutional or statutory
powers is within his discretion as head of the executive branch,"
Gerdes wrote.

The ACLU filed the class action lawsuit in May as coronavirus cases
in state prisons skyrocketed, arguing that the governor was not
doing enough to address prisoners' risk of contracting COVID-19.
Colorado Department of Corrections executive director Dean Williams
was also named as a defendant in the case, but the ACLU resolved
the portion of the suit involving the DOC in November in a consent
decree, which includes improved access to hygiene products and
masks for prisoners.

Earlier in December ACLU lawyers asked the court to issue an
emergency order releasing some prisoners in an attempt to mitigate
viral spread, but that order was not granted.

The Colorado Sun asked both the ACLU of Colorado and Polis' office
for comment but had not received one from either party at the time
of publication. [GN]


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Holtzman Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Company
and CNA Financial Corporation, Case No. 20-L-1558, was removed from
the Madison County Circuit Court of Illinois to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01333-MAB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Continental Casualty Company offers a broad portfolio of property
and casualty business insurance solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
          2227 South State Route 157 P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-5230
          E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com  
                  tom@ghalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph H. Guffey, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1814
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: joe.guffey@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Joshua Grabel, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          2415 E. Camelback Road Suite 500
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (480) 824-7890
          Facsimile: (480) 824-7905
          E-mail: josh.grabel@huschblackwell.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough 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, Rough v. Costco
Wholesale Corp.

In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices.

Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D.
Cal.).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The Company has moved to dismiss or strike portions of the
complaint.

In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454; Sonoma County
Superior Court).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the
federal action.

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: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 decision
to remand the case, Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), has been appealed.

On March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under
the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D.
Cal.).

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class
certification.

In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims
without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state
court.

The remand is being appealed.

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: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
settlement in the case, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
19-CV-340438; Santa Clara Superior Court), has received preliminary
court approval.

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara
Superior Court).

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class
settlement, which received preliminary court approval in July
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: Kristy Class Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------
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 class
action suit entitled, Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No.
20CV366341, has been stayed.

In April 2020, an employee, alleging underpayment of sick pay,
filed a class and representative action against the Company,
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay all wages
at termination and for Labor Code penalties under PAGA.

Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 20CV366341; Santa Clara
County Superior Court).

A motion to dismiss was filed as to the plaintiff's amended
complaint, and the case has been stayed due to the plaintiff's
bankruptcy.

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.


DAIMLER AG: Settlement in Vancouver Alumni Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, VANCOUVER ALUMNI ASSET HOLDINGS INC., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER,
Defendants; and MARIA MUNRO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE,
BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER, Defendants, Master File No.
16-cv-02942-DSF-KS and Case No. 16-cv-03412-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the motion for final approval of
class action settlement filed by Lead Plaintiff Public School
Retirement System of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri.

As of April 20, 2020, the Parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, as amended by their Agreement Regarding
Amendments to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
Sept. 14, 2020, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the
terms and conditions of the proposed settlement of the Action and
the claims alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on Oct. 11, 2016,
on the merits and with prejudice.

Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date
for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement, entered Sept. 22,
2020, the Court scheduled the Settlement Hearing for Dec. 14, 2020
at 1:30 p.m.

The Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; and the Summary Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, advised potential Settlement Class
Members of the date, time, place, and purpose of the Settlement
Hearing.  The Notice further advised that any objections to the
Settlement were required to be served on counsel for the Parties
such that they were received by Nov. 23, 2020.

On Nov. 9, 2020, Lead Plaintiff Public School Retirement System of
the School District of Kansas City, Missouri moved for final
approval of the Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary
Approval Order.  The Settlement Hearing was duly held on Dec. 14,
2020.  Judge Fischer has considered the Lead Plaintiff's motion,
the affidavits, declarations, supporting memoranda of law, the
Stipulation, as amended, and all of the submissions and arguments
presented with respect to the proposed Settlement.

Judge Fischer affirmed the Court's determinations in the
Preliminary Approval Order and finally certified, for purposes of
the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of: "All
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Daimler
American Depositary Receipts and/or Global Registered Shares, in
the United States, during the period from Feb. 22, 2012 through
April 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly
damaged thereby."

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for purposes of the Settlement
only, the Judge re-affirmed the determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certified Kansas City as the Class
Representative for the Settlement Class; and finally appointed the
law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as the Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Liaison
Counsel for the Settlement Class.

There has been one objection to administrative aspects of the
Settlement by Siobhan Esposito, who reports that she received her
notice packet on Dec. 1, 2020.  Ms. Esposito's objection to the
timing of her notice and the description of the Settlement Class is
overruled.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Judge approved the Settlement and finds that said Settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Accordingly,
it is approved in all respects unless inconsistent with the
Judgment and will be consummated in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the Stipulation, as amended.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws, filed on Oct. 11, 2016 is dismissed in its
entirety, with prejudice as of the Effective Date and without costs
to any Party.

The Parties are directed to consummate the Stipulation, as amended,
and to perform its terms.

The Judge will enter a separate order regarding the Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses as allowed
by the Court.  A separate order will also be entered regarding the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund.  Such
orders will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and will be
considered separate from the Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybu7voju from
Leagle.com.


DEL MAR, CA: Bid to Amend Hedayatzadeh Suit to Add Plaintiff Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAHILA H. HEDAYATZADEH, Plaintiff v. CITY OF DEL MAR,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-842-BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T.
Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Leave of Court
to Amend the Class Action Complaint and Add an Additional Lead
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of Del Mar violated her
Fourth Amendment rights by applying chalk marks on the tire of her
vehicle to enforcing parking space time limits.  She alleged that
between May 3, 2017, and May 3, 2019, she received at least one or
two parking tickets for exceeding the time limit on parking spots
imposed in the City.

Ms. Hedayatzadeh further alleges that the Defendant regularly and
systematically uses a process of "chalking," which consists of
applying a small chalk mark to a car tire, to determine whether a
car has over-stayed the parking spot time limit.  The Plaintiff
alleges the Defendant chalks vehicles without consent, purportedly
violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable
searches and seizures.  The Defendant admits it uses chalking to
enforce parking regulations but denies that chalking violates the
Fourth Amendment.

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class of at least 5,500 people
who have had their tires chalked and a subclass of at least 4,000
people who have allegedly paid parking tickets.  On July 23, 2020,
the Court denied her motion for class certification.  The Court
found that she did not meet the typicality requirement of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) such that she would be a proper
representative party because her standing in this case was so
tenuous that it threatened to become the focal point of the
litigation.

Based only on her pleadings, the Court agreed the Plaintiff had
alleged standing, but it also expressed serious doubt that she
would be able to prove her standing at later stages of litigation
when the Court looked beyond the pleadings for evidence supporting
her injury in fact.

Enter Kaveh Hedayatzadeh, the Plaintiff's brother, who--only one
month after the Court's order denying class certification--happened
to receive a parking ticket from the Defendant, allegedly based on
its use of chalking on his car tire.  Kaveh Hedayatzadeh has a copy
of his citation, which he allegedly paid.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to grant her leave to amend her
Complaint, adding her brother as an additional representative
Plaintiff.  She argues amendment is appropriate because her brother
actually has a record of his parking citation, alleviating the
"typicality" issues that plagued her Motion for Class
Certification.  She further argues her Motion to Amend (1) is made
in good faith, (2) is timely following the Court's ruling on her
Motion for Class Certification, (3) does not unduly prejudice the
Defendant, and (4) would not be futile.

The Defendant opposes, arguing (1) the Plaintiff's lack of standing
bars amendment, and (2) the factors set forth in Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178 (1962), weigh against granting leave to amend.

Judge Benitez finds that that because the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to Amend is made solely to rectify a potential standing
defect and amendment may not be used to retroactively create
jurisdiction, he is not persuaded that amendment would be proper.

Even if he considered the Foman factors, the Judge holds that the
result would be the same because the proposed amendment comes after
unreasonable delay and would cause undue prejudice to the
Defendant.  First, the early and extensive discovery conducted by
the Defendant in July 2019 put the Plaintiff on notice of her
standing issues, which she chose not to address for over one year
while awaiting the Court's action on her Motion for Class
Certification.  Second, the amendment would needlessly consume the
Defendant's resources on procedural issues of recertification while
avoiding the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Benitez denied the Motion.  The
Plaintiff may pursue her claim on an individual basis and the
proposed intervenor may file his own lawsuit should he so choose.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7tny2w6 from Leagle.com.


DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Encampments to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Swanson, writing for Denver Post, reports that a
class-action lawsuit meant to stop Denver officials from breaking
up homeless encampments during the coronavirus pandemic will
continue this month, though a ruling will take longer, an attorney
involved in the case said.

That attorney, Andy McNulty, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District
Court of Colorado in October on behalf of about 10 people
experiencing homelessness in the hopes of stopping the so-called
encampment sweeps.

Breaking up illegal encampments makes it more difficult for those
living on the streets to find work and stable housing and endangers
them and the rest of the community by increasing the danger of
exposure to COVID-19, he said.

A hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction began in
mid-December and continued for two days, McNulty said. That
hearing, which will continue early next year, is meant to determine
whether Denver must stop the sweeps -- which city officials call
large-scale cleanups -- for the duration of the lawsuit.

People experiencing homelessness are at greater risk if they
contract the virus, McNulty said, because they more commonly suffer
from underlying health conditions and have less access to medical
care. And without offering a substantial amount of new housing
options for the homeless, the city should not break up illegal
encampments, he said.

It's a common refrain from public health experts and homeless
advocates alike. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
also has issued guidance on the topic, recommending that
governments avoid breaking up encampments unless they're able to
offer alternative housing options to those who would be displaced.

And while city officials -- who did not respond to requests for
comment -- often have said Denver is following CDC guidelines, it's
less clear whether that's actually the case. Two sanctioned
encampments opened in December, but they only provide enough room
for a maximum of 70 people, just a fraction of the overall homeless
population. City officials have also worked to open more shelter
space, though many fear for their safety and health in those
congregate facilities. And the sweeps are continuing.

McNulty said his lawsuit against the city focuses on two recent and
high-profile sweeps and he not only hopes to stop those practices
in the future but also is seeking monetary damages for those whose
property was destroyed or thrown away during the sweeps.

In two days of testimony, McNulty said elected officials, public
health experts and nonprofit representatives offered their thoughts
on the sweeps. The testimony will continue Jan. 11 and a ruling is
expected in the days or weeks following, he said. [GN]


DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bessette Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN D. BESSETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV375151 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 12, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Bessette was employed by the Defendants as store
manager.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. conducts business as a joint issuer of
debt. The Company operates as a dual issuer of unsecured notes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mlke Arlas, Esq,
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Craig S. Momita, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG
          & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  a1fredo@asst1awyers.com
                  craig@asstlawyers.com


DOW JONES: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAY WINEGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. d/b/a THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06321-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 29, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has
denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals' access to goods and  services provided to non-disabled
individuals through its Web site www.wsj.com, and in conjunction
with its physical location of offices, video, television and blog
studios, newspaper publishing, live events, telecommunication
offices, advertising offices and hosting locations, is a violation
of Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant has videos on its Web site without closed captioning,
or with limited closed captioning, which are inaccessible to deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals. Without closed captioning, deaf
and hard-of-hearing people cannot understand the audio portion of
the videos on the Web site.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. provides business news and information
services. The Company offers business publications, pan-regional
daily newspapers, financial weeklies, and real-time news and
information. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 415-0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706-6631


EL TORITO: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
IVAN GABRIEL SANTOS, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated current and former employees v. EL TORITO
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., A Virginia Corporation, and JOSE SOTO,
individually, Case No. 7:20-cv-00763-TTC (W.D. Va., Dec. 23, 2020)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
other damages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated current and
former tipped employees of Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiff Ivan Gabriel Santos was employed by Defendants as a
tipped employee (server & bartender) at their El Torito restaurant
in Galax, Virginia from roughly 2017 until approximately November
20, 2020.

El Torito Restaurants Inc. is one of several Mexican cuisine
restaurant chains operated by Xperience Restaurant Group. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Johneal Moore White, Esq.
          GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF, PLC
          400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540) 767-2206
          Facsimile: (540) 767-2220
          E-mail: jwhite@glennrob.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
           OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com   
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Ruling in FCRA Suit to Ninth Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Theresa Tailford, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Theresa Tailford, Sanford
Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman, and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02191-CJC-KES, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the court's order, granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint
by Judge Cormac J. Carney.

The appellate case is captioned as Theresa Tailford, et al v.
Experian Information Solutions, Case No. 20-56344, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Sanford Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman and Theresa
Tailford Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- Appellants Sanford Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman and Theresa
Tailford opening brief is due on March 29, 2021;

   -- Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc. answering brief
is due on April 26, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants THERESA TAILFORD, SANFORD BUCKLES, JEFFREY C.
RUDERMAN, and all similarly situated individuals, are represented
by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com    

               - and -

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          8383 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 456-8638
          E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com  

               - and -

          Miles Clark, Esq.
          Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
          KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
          5510 So. Fort Apache Road, Suite 30
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 825-6060   
          E-mail: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com
                  Matthew.Knepper@knepperclark.com
  
               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (4050 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com  

               - and -

          David Krieger, Esq.
          KRIEGER LAW GROUP, LLC
          2850 W. Horizon Ridge Boulevard, Suite 200
          Henderson, NV 89052
          Telephone: (702) 848-3855

               - and -

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com  

Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is
represented by:

          Edward San Chang, Esq.
          Ryan Ball, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          Justin Andrew Potesta, Esq.
          John A. Vogt, Esq.    
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: echang@jonesday.com
                  rball@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com    
                  jpotesta@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com

FANTASY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASY SPORTS SHARK, LLC d/b/a
Monkey Knife Fight, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06203-LDH-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

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

The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.monkeyknifefight.com, the last occurring on or about December
19, 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him
equal access and the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and
services of the Website offered to the public.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him
and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the
Website.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant
to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers; compensatory damages, including all
applicable statutory damages, punitive damages and fines; pre- and
post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys' and expert fees.

Fantasy Sports Shark, LLC d/b/a Monkey Knife Fight offers online
fantasy sports services, through its Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWER LLP
          420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Tel: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class in Fischer Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTA B. FISCHER, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04924-JMG (E.D.
Pa.), Judge John M. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Fischer's Motion for
Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice, but only for
the putative opt-in Plaintiffs, who worked for FedEx Express in
Pennsylvania during the relevant period.

For the better part of the last decade, Fischer and Andre Saunders
worked as security specialists at their respective FedEx Ground
facility assignments in Pennsylvania and Maryland.  Although they
are employed by FedEx Express, security specialists provide various
loss-prevention and site monitoring services at FedEx Ground
locations pursuant to a Professional Services Agreement.

Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders allege that, during their time as
security specialists, they regularly worked more than 40 hours a
week.  However, because FedEx Express classified them as salaried
employees who were exempt from overtime pay requirements, they were
not paid for those extra hours worked.  As a result, Ms. Fischer
and Mr. Saunders brought suit alleging that, by misclassifying
security specialists as exempt employees, FedEx Express failed to
pay them proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Fischer filed her Complaint in the action on Oct. 22, 2019.  On
Dec. 21, 2019, Mr. Saunders filed a notice of consent to become a
party Plaintiff.  Ms. Fischer filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification on May 15, 2020.  The Defendants' filed their
Response in Opposition on July 1, 2020.  Following a status
conference on Oct. 22, 2020, the Court ordered the Parties to file
supplemental briefs providing additional arguments concerning
conditional certification, jurisdictional limitations that may
apply thereto, and the possible joint employer relationship between
the Defendants.  The Parties each filed their supplemental briefs
on Nov. 20, 2020.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees alleging a breach of
the Act's provisions by their employer may bring suit on behalf of
themselves and any other similarly situated employees.  The
"collective action" mechanism enables plaintiffs to vindicate their
rights under the Act at lower cost to each individual and promotes
judicial economy by consolidating each employee's claim into a
single proceeding.

Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders seek conditional certification of a
nationwide collective comprised of all security specialists
employed by FedEx Express and FedEx Ground who were improperly
classified as overtime exempt.  However, district courts disagree
as to whether the Supreme Court's holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., precludes
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over opt-in plaintiffs
alleging violations that occurred outside of the state.

Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders seek conditional certification of an
FLSA collective consisting of any individual employed by FedEx
Express or FedEx Ground as a Security Specialist II, Security
Specialist III, or Senior Security Specialist within the past three
years that did not receive proper overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 per workweek.

Judge Gallagher finds that, while it is a close call, the
Plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they and other
putative class members are similarly situated.  They have,
therefore, satisfied the requirements for conditional
certification.  However, the Plaintiffs' proposed collective is
subject to the strictures of personal jurisdiction and must be
conditionally certified in a more limited form than they proposed.

After assessing the "economic reality" of the Plaintiffs'
relationship with the Defendants, the Judge finds that the evidence
weighs heavily against the existence of a joint employer
relationship between FedEx Express and FedEx Ground.  Security
specialists are hired by FedEx Express, not FedEx Ground.  FedEx
Ground has no authority to hire, fire, or discipline security
specialists.  FedEx Express interviewed and hired Ms. Fischer.
When Ms. Fischer resigned her position, she only notified FedEx
Express management.

The Judge, therefore, finds that FedEx Ground was not the
Plaintiffs' joint employer during the relevant period.  As a
result, he need not consider whether joint employer liability
confers general jurisdiction over out-state-state claims against
FedEx Ground.  He will certify a collective action consisting of
individuals employed by Federal Express in Pennsylvania as a
Security Specialist II, Security Specialist III, or Senior Security
Specialist within the past three years who allegedly did not
receive proper overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per
workweek.

Finally, disputes regarding the form and content of
court-sanctioned notice should be resolved by the Parties.  The
Parties therefore will be afforded sufficient time to confer and
resolve any objections regarding the form and scope of the
Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent Form.  Should the Parties
fail to reach a consensus, they will submit their proposed language
to the Court within the time period prescribed in the accompanying
Order and the Court will determine which is the appropriate form of
notice, subject to possible modifications.

Judge Gallagher concludes that the Plaintiffs have made a modest
factual showing that they and the other putative class members are
similarly situated.  Therefore, he granted the Motion for
Conditional Certification, but only for the putative opt-in
Plaintiffs, who worked for FedEx Express in Pennsylvania during the
relevant period.  The Parties will meet and confer regarding the
proper form and scope of notice to be distributed to potential
members of the collective.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybdkmrah from Leagle.com.


FIRST AMERICAN: Abdelrasoul Ruling in Breach Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thaer Abdelrasoul filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled THAER ABDELRASOUL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST AMERICAN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-01305-DSF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
are the largest title insurer in the country. A real-estate
developer discovered that all of First American's 885 million
confidential customer documents were publicly accessible on its
website. The developer contacted First American, but First American
allegedly refused to respond or to take any ameliorative action.
The developer then contacted a journalist, who wrote an article
stating that all of First American's 885 million documents were
publicly accessible.

First American then terminated access to the documents on its
website. At least 21 class actions have been filed against First
American relating to this exposure of confidential customer
documents.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the court's order on Nov. 17,
granting dismissal with prejudice after granting a motion to compel
arbitration. Under the order, the Plaintiff takes nothing, that the
action be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendants recover
costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with
28 U.S.C. Section 1920.

The appellate case is captioned as Thaer Abdelrasoul v. First
American Title Company, et al, Case No. 20-56345, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Thaer Abdelrasoul Mediation Questionnaire was due
on December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- Appellant Thaer Abdelrasoul opening brief due is due on March
29, 2021;

   -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First
American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021;
and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant THAER ABDELRASOUL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE
          1301 Dove Street
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com  

               - and -

          Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com    

               - and -

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 350-0527
          E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com

Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, a
California corporation, are represented by:

          Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq.
          Paul Kakuske, Esq.
          Ronald David Kent, Esq.
          Joel David Siegel, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-6141
          E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com
                  paul.kakuske@dentons.com
                  ronald.kent@dentons.com
                  joel.siegel@dentons.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Campbell Ruling in Contract Breach Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Roger Campbell, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROGER CAMPBELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01533-DSF-E, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
are the largest title insurer in the country. A real-estate
developer discovered that all of First American's 885 million
confidential customer documents were publicly accessible on its
website. The developer contacted First American, but First American
allegedly refused to respond or to take any ameliorative action.
The developer then contacted a journalist, who wrote an article
stating that all of First American's 885 million documents were
publicly accessible.

First American then terminated access to the documents on its
website. At least 21 class actions have been filed against First
American relating to this exposure of confidential customer
documents.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the court's order on Nov. 17,
granting an order for dismissal with prejudice after granting a
motion to compel arbitration. Under the order, the Plaintiffs take
nothing, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that
Defendants recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1920.

The appellate case is captioned as Roger Campbell, et al. v. First
American Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 20-56346, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Roger Campbell and Gillian Schaadt Mediation
Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- Appellants Roger Campbell and Gillian Schaadt opening brief
is due on March 29, 2021;

   -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First
American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021;
and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROGER CAMPBELL and GILLIAN SCHAADT, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE
          1301 Dove Street
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com  

               - and -

          Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com    

               - and -

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 350-0527
          E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com

Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, a
California corporation, are represented by:

          Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq.
          Paul Kakuske, Esq.
          Ronald David Kent, Esq.
          Joel David Siegel, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-6141
          E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com
                  paul.kakuske@dentons.com
                  ronald.kent@dentons.com
                  joel.siegel@dentons.com

FIRST AMERICAN: Dinh Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ben Dinh filed an appeal from court rulings entered in
the lawsuit entitled BEN DINH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01105-DSF-E, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action against the Defendants for data breach. The Defendants
failed to secure its website which contains the Plaintiff and the
class sensitive personal information.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allowed the data breach
to occur, despite it being caused by a relatively common website
design error called Insecure Direct Object Reference, which occurs
when a link to a webpage with sensitive information is created and
intended to only be seen by a specific party, but there is no
method to actually verify the identity of who is viewing the link.
As a result, anyone who discovers a link to one document can view
it - and can discover any of the other documents hosted on the site
by simply modifying the link.

Mr. Dinh is seeking an appeal to review the Court's rulings,
granting motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lasheeda Forney voluntarily
without prejudice, granting motion to compel arbitration, denying
motion to joint First American Title Ins. Co., granting in part and
denying in part motion to strike, and denying motion for
reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned as Ben Dinh v. First American
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 20-56342, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Ben Dinh Mediation Questionnaire was due on
December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- Appellant Ben Dinh opening brief is due on March 29, 2021;

   -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First
American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021;
and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BEN DINH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE
          1301 Dove Street
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com  

               - and -

          Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com  

               - and -

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 350-0527
          E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com

Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and FIRST
AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY are represented by:

          Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq.
          Paul Kakuske, Esq.
          Ronald David Kent, Esq.
          Joel David Siegel, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-6141
          E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com
                  paul.kakuske@dentons.com
                  ronald.kent@dentons.com
                  joel.siegel@dentons.com

FORTRESS BIOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 30 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Fortress Biotech, Inc. ("Fortress" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FBIO)
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.     

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
11, 2019 and October 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 26, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Fortress' majority-controlled subsidiary
Avenue Therapeutics Inc. submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA")
for its IV Tramadol product in December 2019. In fact, IV Tramadol
was not safe for use with its intended patients. Based on these
safety problems, it was not likely that the FDA would approve the
NDA for IV Tramadol. Based on this news, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Fortress,
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]


GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Demeritte Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE DEMERITTE; and TAMISHA LAFALAISE, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL RESPONSE,
LLC; Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-62693 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 30, 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 Defendant as customer service
representatives.

Global Response Services LLC provides administration services. The
Company offers service such as hiring, placing of personnel,
security services, cleaning, and waste disposal. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               -and-

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          Alana Karabal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17 th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com
                  akrabal@sommerspc.com


GLOCK INC: Johnson Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Steven C. Johnson, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia
Corporation, GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian entity, JOHN and JANE
DOES 1 through V, ABC CORPORATIONS I-X,XYZ PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIPS and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN COMPONENT
MANUFACTURERS 1-V, Case No. RG20075498, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 11,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' hand guns are defective
and unreasonably dangerous because the common design of the hand
guns will not prevent and has not prevented a "blow out" or
"Kaboom" which can, and does, result in personal injury. The
unsupported chamber defect results from the inadequate design,
manufacturing, and testing of the hand guns, and the continued
failure of the Defendants to remedy the defect. The defect has
created an unreasonably dangerous situation for a person owning
and/or possessing a hand gun, and has substantially reduced, or
eliminated completely, the value of the hand guns.

Glock Inc. is a global manufacturer of firearms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Michael Tomasevic, Esq.
          Jake William Schulte, Esq.  
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101-5005
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  jschulte@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Renzulli, Esq.
          Howard B. Schilsky, Esq.
          RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP
          One North Broadway Suite 1005
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 285-0700
          Facsimile: (914) 285-1213
          E-mail: crenzulli@renzullilaw.com
                  hschilsky@renzullilaw.com

               - and -

          Lauren O. Miller, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 279-5393
          Facsimile: (408) 279-5845
          E-mail: lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com

               - and -

          Marion Vincent Mauch, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          970 West 190th Street Suite 700
          Torrance, CA 90502
          Telephone: (310) 768-3068
          E-mail: marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com

               - and -

          Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 643-2400
          Facsimile: (602) 248-0947
          E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gonzales Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL GONZALEZ; and ALEXANDER RIESKE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11722 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as auto claim
adjusters.

Government Employees Insurance Company provides insurance products.
The Company offers automobile, motorcycle, renter, homeowner, life,
mobile home, flood, condo, umbrella, and boat insurances. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com


GREAT AMERICAN: Davis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
TALIA DAVIS; YUTASHIA GAMBLE; and PAMELA MIMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREAT
AMERICAN DREAM, INC. d/b/a PIN UPS; CARY ADAMS; and JAMES W. LEE,
SR., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05272-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30,
2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly compensate the
Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage, tip credit compensation
method, and the applicable overtime rate.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers.

The Great American Dream, Inc. d/b/a Pin Ups owns and operates an
entertainment club. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780-4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com

               -and-

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dghodges@hftrialfirm.com


GREGORYS COFFEE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Bakers, De Jesus Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMADOR DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREGORYS COFFEE MANAGEMENT, LLC; and GREGORY
ZAMFOTIS, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-06305 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 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 De Jesus was employed by the Defendants as baker.

Gregorys Coffee Management, LLC owns and operates a coffee shop.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


GRIDDLE INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO AMARO RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRIDDLE INC., and KONSTANTINOS LOUVROS, as an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-06226 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class
members required minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide a
written notice and recordkeeping, and failing to provide wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July
2016 until in or around July 2020 whose primary duties consisted
of, among other things, preparing, assembling, and performing
deliveries for Defendants' orders, cleaning, moping, serving as a
busboy, stocking goods, and performing other miscellaneous job
duties for the Defendants.

Griddle Inc. is a restaurant based in Long Island City, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HAIYING REN: Wang Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ming En Wang filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated November 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
MING EN WANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HAIYING REN a/k/a Michael Chen a/k/a Michael Ren,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-5310, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself as well as other
employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and practices.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the court's order granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Wang v. Ren, Case No. 20-4216,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dec.
18, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Ming En Wang, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-2332
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

Defendant-Appellee Haiying Ren, AKA Michael Ren, AKA Michael Chen,
is represented by:

          David Halsband, Esq.
          HALSBAND LAW OFFICES
          Court Plaza South, 21 Main Street, East Wing
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 487-6249
          E-mail: halsbandlaw@optonline.net   

HANNA ANDERSSON: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of Breach Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. -- kristin.bryan@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that in November the high-end children's clothing retailer
Hanna Andersson agreed to pay $400,000 and implement new security
measures as part of a class action settlement arising from
litigation brought in the wake of a widespread data breach. The
lawsuit stems from a security incident where hackers accessed Hanna
Andersson's ("Hanna") third-party e-commerce platform and gained
access to customers' personal information ("PII"). The breach
affected the PII (including names, shipping and billing addresses,
payment card numbers, CVV codes, and expiration dates) of over
200,000 customers who made online purchases using the Hanna website
between September 16 and November 11, 2019. The hackers then
exfiltrated and used this information to make fraudulent purchases
using Hanna's customers' credit cards. Hanna notified its customers
of the breach on January 15, 2020.

Well, on Dec. 29 a federal court in California granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and certified a settlement class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), consisting of "[a]ll
individuals residing in the United States who made purchases on the
Hanna Andersson website from September 16, 2019 to November 11,
2019." As part of this ruling the court found that "[t]he terms of
the Settlement Agreement do not improperly grant preferential
treatment to any individual or segment of the Settlement Class and
fall within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and
adequate." Settlement Class Members who (1) wish to opt-out and
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or (2) object to the
settlement must provide notice by April 28, 2021. A final approval
hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2021.

Assuming no objectors derail final approval next year, the Hanna
Andersson case will be the first class action settlement under the
CCPA. Other CCPA litigants will be sure to look to the enhanced
security requirements and monetary payout to the class as a
starting point for CCPA settlements going forward. CPW will be
there to cover those developments as they occur. Stay tuned. [GN]


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Clinic Slams Denied COVID Loss Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PODIATRY FOOT & ANKLE INSTITUTE P.A., individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC. and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Case No.
2:20-cv-20057-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual obligation
to provide coverage for, and pay, Plaintiff's business income
losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of
their operations due to COVID-19.

According to the complaint, the actions of the Defendants in
improperly denying PF&AI's claim were in complete disregard of
PF&AI's contractual rights, resulting in a material breach of
Defendants' duties and obligation owed under the commercial
insurance policy, depriving PF&AI of the benefit of its bargain,
and causing serious financial damages to Plaintiff.

Podiatry Foot & Ankle Institute P.A. is a podiatry specialist in
Hackensack, New Jersey.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. provides a range of
insurance products. The Company's products include property and
casualty insurance, group benefits, and mutual funds. Hartford
Financial Services Group operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC  
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
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
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various
California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act,
Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and
seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees
employed in certain "Covered Positions."

The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the individual plaintiffs.

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

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.

HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Seeks 6th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kathryn Rodriguez filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated Dec. 18, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., Case No.
1:18-cv-00240, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

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

Ms. Rodriguez seeks a review of the court's order on Dec. 18,
wherein her FDCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice, denying as
moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg
Acceptance Corp., Case No. 20-2247, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KATHRYN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Curtis Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          5 E. Market Street, Suite 250
          Corning, NY 14830
          Telephone: (888) 551-8685
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

Defendant-Appellee HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE CORP. is represented by:

          Kathleen Helen Klaus, Esq.
          MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER
          28400 Northwestern Highway, 2nd Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-4030
          E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com

HISTORIC IMAGES: Buren et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE VAN BUREN and BRET VANDEPOLDER, Plaintiffs v. HISTORIC
IMAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02917-MSN-cgc (W.D.
Tenn., December 21, 2020) bring this complaint against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful payroll policies and practices
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as Image Cataloging
Specialists. Plaintiff Buren started working with the Defendant on
or about April 10, 2017, while Plaintiff VanDepolder was on or
about April 24, 2017. Both ended their employment with the
Defendant on July 10, 2020.

Although the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated as independent contractors, their jobs and
working condition do not comport with the accepted definition of
the term "independent contractor". Their services rendered for the
Defendant were integral to the Defendant's principal business, and
they were hired for an indefinite period rather than for a fixed
period for the completion of the Defendant's discreet project.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed and refused to pay
them the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime
premiums for all hours worked over 40 in any given workweek.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked well over 40
hours per week while working for the Defendant, but made on average
less than $200 per week that is under the federal minimum wage. The
Defendant terminated the Plaintiffs when it discovered that the
Plaintiffs had outsourced certain portions of their work.

Historic Images, Inc. offers comprehensive digitization solutions
for photo and negative archives. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Tel: (800) 403-7868
          Tel: (901) 737-7740
          Fax: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com


HOMES.COM INC: Pierucci TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA PIERUCCI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMES.COM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-455 (E.D. Va.), Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Homes.com is a real estate website that generates leads for
listings for real estate agents and markets its leads through text
messages.  On Feb. 27, 2020, Pierucci received an unsolicited text
message on her cellphone from Homes.  The Plaintiff did not consent
to Homes contacting her in any way.

The Plaintiff alleges that the text message was a nuisance that
aggravated her, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished
the value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to
temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused
wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and
battery components.

On March 4, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  She alleges
that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "all persons" who
received unsolicited text messages similar to her and alleges that
Homes.com sent substantively identical unsolicited text messages en
masse to the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of consumers.

The Plaintiff seeks a maximum of $1,500 in damages for each time
Homes sent these unsolicited text messages.

On June 8, 2020, the Defendant was granted a motion to transfer
venue to the Eastern District of Virginia.  On Sept. 11, 2020, the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  On Sept. 29, 2020, the Defendant filed the
instant motion to dismiss.  It also filed a Motion to Stay
Defendant's motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court's
Decision in Facebook v. Duguid as well as a Motion to Strike Class
Definition.  On Oct. 13, 2020, the Plaintiff responded in
opposition to all three motions.  On Oct. 19, 2020, the Defendant
replied.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent her
text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system.
However, the Complaint only identifies a single instance, on Feb.
27, 2020, when the Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message.

Judge Jackson finds that the text message, on its own, does not
support the allegation that the Defendant used an AIDS to send the
Plaintiff various text messages.  Rather, the text message could
plausibly support the reasonable inference that the Defendant did
not use an ATDS because the text message is addressed specifically
to the Plaintiff; identifies a specific sender, "Dion," and
includes information about buying/selling homes in the Plaintiff's
area.

Additionally, the Complaint made the conclusory allegation, and
argument, that Homes.com, or a third party acting on its behalf,
utilized an automatic telephone dialing system; hardware and/or
software with the capacity to store or produce cellular telephone
number to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,
or to dial telephone numbers from preloaded lists.  The Judge
similarly finds that the statement is conclusory because it merely
states that the Defendant used an ATDS but does not provide any
supporting facts for the Court to draw a reasonable inference.

Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that it is evident from the
circumstances surrounding the text message, including the text
message's commercial and generic content, that the text message was
unsolicited, and that the text message was sent from a landline
phone number.  However, the Judge finds that it is not evident on
the basis of the complaint that the Defendant was using an ATDS
because there is a lack of sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that the Plaintiff's number was autodialed or that the
Defendants used an ATDS.

Therefore, the Judge says, the Plaintiff provided a threadbare
recital of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, which does not suffice.  The principle that
a court must accept as true all of the complaint's allegations only
applies to factual allegations; legal conclusions couched as
factual allegations need not be accepted as binding.  Further, a
court need not accept "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable
conclusions, or arguments."

Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge Jackson granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's
Complaint without prejudice.  The Plaintiff is granted Leave to
Amend the Complaint within 15 days from the date of the Order.  The
Judge also dismissed as moot the Moot Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Facebook Duguid as
well as the Motion to Strike Class Definition.  He directed the
Clerk to provide a copy of the Order to the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79sjfnj from
Leagle.com.


HONDA MOTOR: Settles 5-Speed Transmission Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Honda 5-speed transmission class
action settlement has been reached for consumers residing in
California who were the original owners of any of the following
vehicles with 5-speed automatic transmissions and continued being
the owner as of December 7, 2015.

2003-2004 Honda Accord
2002-2004 Honda Odyssey
2003-2004 Honda Pilot
2001-2002 Acura MDX
2003 Acura TL 3.2 Type S with VIN range: 19UUA5 . . .
3A019062-093971
2003 Acura CL 3.2 Type S with VIN range: 19UYA42 . . .
3A005204-016337
The Honda transmission lawsuit was filed in 2009 alleging Honda
created a "secret warranty" program which expanded or extended the
warranty "beyond its stated limits and/or offered to pay for all of
or part of the cost of repairing or replacing the transmission
system in Class Vehicles."

According to the 5-speed lawsuit, Honda knew but failed to disclose
a defect in the 3rd clutch of the automatic transmission that makes
the transmission system prone to premature failure.

The class action alleges the 3rd clutch could cause the
transmission to suddenly downshift from 5th gear to 2nd gear while
driving at highway speeds.

Honda denies there is a secret warranty and denies all allegations
in the 5-speed automatic transmission class action lawsuit.

Honda 5-Speed Transmission Settlement Terms
Original Honda owners have a choice between two types of monetary
relief, either reimbursement or a $25 credit towards the future
purchase of Honda parts, but not both. The $25 credit may be used
only towards the vehicle owned by you and may not be used for any
other Honda or Acura vehicle.

Honda customers who elect to receive the credit don't need to do
anything because they will automatically receive the credit toward
a future parts purchase.

Owners who choose to be reimbursed must supply documentation and
could receive 100% reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for
Honda parts associated with replacing the 5-speed transmission. The
replacement must have been performed before the vehicle reached 93
months or 109,000 miles from original purchase, whichever comes
first.

If an independent mechanic or repair shop replaced the
transmission, a claim for reimbursement must include documents
showing details of the replacement and that you, not an insurance
company, paid for the replacement.

If a Honda dealer replaced the 5-speed transmission, a claim for
reimbursement must include documentation showing the cost of the
repair.

However, if "Honda investigates the claim and determines the repair
was not paid for by the Settlement Class Member, or someone acting
on the Settlement Class Member's behalf who is not an
insurance-based entity or third-party warrantor, Honda reserves the
right to reject the Claim for Reimbursement."

The attorneys who sued Honda will receive more than $1 million, and
a final approval hearing about the Honda 5-speed lawsuit settlement
will be held on January 19, 2021.

Owners can learn more about the Honda 5-speed transmission class
action lawsuit settlement by visiting
Honda5speedATclasssettlement.com.

The Honda 5-speed transmission class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County California: Case, et al.
v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Esensten Law. [GN]


HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. 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 motion to dismiss filed in the
putative class action suit entitled, In re HP Inc. Securities
Litigation, is pending.

On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion
Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California.

On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island,
Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint
Funds as Lead Plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph
Schell.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from
February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies
business, including HP's use of its four-box model to predict the
demand for supplies.

It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling
shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information about HP’s print
business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.

On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

That motion is due to be fully briefed in early 2021.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.

HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. 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 company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP
Inc.

On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned
Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem
against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain
OfficeJet printers.

The petition and motion for certification as a class action
alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law,
5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of
the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5)
improper enrichment.

The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide
classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been
blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink
cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges
not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers."

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

On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was
filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v.
HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in
certain OfficeJet printers.

The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf
of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated
with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24,
2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead
matter.

On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed
nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP
printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP
with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who
purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the
Blocked Printers." On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the
amended petition.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.

HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
HP Inc. 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 appeal on the court's decision in
granting the motion to dismiss the suit Parziale v. HP Inc., is
pending.

On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed
against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California
arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet
printers.

The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer
Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and
(2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A.
Sections 817.41 et seq.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to
reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges."

On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass
to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations.


Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied
in part HP's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff's
causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as
well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and
four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and
on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint.

On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to
chattels.

Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages,
including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 29,
2020, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss, dismissing the case
in full with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed notice of appeal, and its opening brief is due in
early 2021.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.

HP INC: York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. 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 company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, York County on behalf of the
County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al.

On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against
HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the
Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 6,
2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
information and making false statements about HP's printing
supplies business, including information about HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.



IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC.

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that
settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained
as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the
Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is
invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders
received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon
Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B
common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and
the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class
Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.

The parties are engaged in discovery.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this
stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability,
if any.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

IDT CORP: Samara Putative Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation 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 putative class
action suit initiated by Scarleth Samara, has been dismissed.

On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent
unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone. IDT Telecom filed
a motion to compel arbitration.

On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
pending court action.

In November 2020, the matter was resolved for a de minimus amount.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.

IDT CORP: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation 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 IDT America, IDT
Domestic Telecom and IDT International continue to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Jose Rosales.

On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate
members of the putative class in accordance with California law.

The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. In August
2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging
trade secret and other violations.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MADISYN STAUFFER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS,
LLC and PATHFINDER SOFTWARE, LLC, d/b/a CENTEREDGE SOFTWARE, Case
No. 19-L-0311, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division on Dec. 11,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01332-MAB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by scanning the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' fingerprints for
timekeeping and other purposes.

Pathfinder provided fingerprint tracking technology to Innovative
Heights and other innovative companies for the use of their
respective employees. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kendall Canfield, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          103 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 300
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-7290
          Facsimile: (618) 692-6099
          E-mail: Kendall.Canfield@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Josh M. Kantrow, Esq.
          Thomas M. Wolf, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 345-1718
          Facsimile: (312) 345-1778
          E-mail: Josh.Kantrow@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Thomas.Wolf@lewisbrisbois.com  

INTERFACE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Dec. 31 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:TILE)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT TILE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/interface-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1

Class Period: March 2, 2018 - September 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NAK:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1

Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT KNDI:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1

Class Period: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Amended Ponzo Complaint Tossed; May Replead
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK PONZO, on behalf of the inmates of Jefferson
County, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 5:19-CV-1013 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to replead.

On Aug. 16, 2019, Plaintiff Ponzo filed a putative class action
against the County of Jefferson alleging violations of inmates'
constitutional rights.  On Sept. 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Therese
Wiley Dancks granted the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and recommended his Complaint be dismissed with leave to
replead ("First Report-Recommendation").

The Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint on Oct. 23,
2019.  The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks' recommendations
and deemed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint the operative
pleading, necessitating further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e).  On May 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Dancks
recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with leave to
replead ("Second Report-Recommendation").

As the Plaintiff has not filed objections, Judge Kahn reviews the
Second Report-Recommendation for clear error, and finds none.  For
this reason, he adopted the Second-Report-Recommendation in its
entirety.  The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within
30 days of the Decision and Order.  The Clerk will serve a copy of
the Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local
Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8un6vbn from Leagle.com.


JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
YY) between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired JOYY securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

JOYY investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the JOYY Securities Class Litigation

JOYY, headquartered in Guangzhou, China, describes itself as a
global social media platform, offering users around the world a
uniquely engaging and immersive experience across various
video-based content categories, such as live streaming, short-form
videos and video communication. The Company was formerly known as
YY, Inc. and changed its name to JOYY, Inc. on December 20, 2019.

The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY overstated
its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users
were bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a
round-tripping scheme that manufactured the appearance of revenues;
(4) the Company overstated its cash reserves; and (5) the Company's
acquisition of Bigo was designed to benefit corporate insiders.

On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Capital ("Muddy Waters")
published a report entitled "YY: You Can't Make this Stuff Up.
Well…Actually You Can." According to the report, JOYY was "a
multibillion-dollar fraud" with "component businesses . . . a
fraction of the size it reports, and . . . reported user metrics,
revenues, and cash balances [that] are predominantly fraudulent."
Citing a "year-long investigation," Muddy Waters concluded that
JOYY "is about 90% fraudulent." Following this news, the price of
JOYY's American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") fell $26.53 per ADR, or
26.48%, to close at $73.66 per ADR on November 18, 2020.

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.,
ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM
BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:20-cv-09259-WHO (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges Defendants'
violations of the Maryland Public Nuisance Law, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.

The complaint contends that the Defendants developed a strategy to
create a nicotine product that would maximize profits through
addiction, designed a nicotine delivery device intended to create
and sustain addiction to vulnerable young population, implemented a
marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that Juul products
contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and
safe and intentionally marketed products to young people.

The Defendants' conduct has created a public health crisis in
Plaintiff's community, which has forced Plaintiff to divert
significant and unexpected amounts of time and resources to address
the pervasiveness of youth e-cigarette use in its community,
imposing a significant drain on Plaintiff's resources, the suit
says.

Montgomery Schools is a school district located in Montgomery
County, Maryland.

JUUL Labs, Inc. designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises,
promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
       
               - and -

          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
          Felicia J. Craick
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
                  fcraick@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Stephanie P. Williams, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
          Office of the General Counsel
          850 Hungerford Drive, Room 156
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (240) 740-5600
          E-mail: Stephanie_Williams@mcpsmd.org

K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) between April
27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important January 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
K12 investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the K12 class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1989.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) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; and (4) as a result,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about K12’s business, operations, and prospects. 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
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-1989.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]


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 30 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

KNDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1
QSR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1
OTGLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)

KNDI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 15, 2019 -
November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose 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.

Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)

QSR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 29, 2019 -
October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Restaurant Brands International Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's 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 the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.

CD Projekt S.A. (OTCPINK:OTGLY)

OTGLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 16,
2020 - December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CD
Projekt S.A. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period,
defendants were materially false and/or 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 Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, 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, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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


KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. 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 a settlement has been
reached in the consolidated "Spack" and "Roper" class action suit.

There are two pending class actions.  

The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017.  The Spack Action
alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers (SMs) as
exempt nationwide.  It also alleges that Trans World improperly
calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers (SAMs)
nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked "off-the-clock."  It
also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law
with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs.  

The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, August 2017.  The Roper Action
also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of SMs.


Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New
York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.

The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for both
store manager class actions.  

The Company reserved $425,000 for the settlement as of October 31,
2020.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.

KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. 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 the company continues
to defend a punitive class action suit in Massachusetts state court
related to VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.  

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.  

The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed
lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts
state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden
Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to
represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were
charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.

KMI INDUSTRIAL: BakerHostetler Discusses CAFA Removal Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Goodman, Esq. -- mgoodman@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that Congress
enacted the Class Action Fairness Act to address perceived problems
with the handling of class actions by courts. Among its provisions
was one permitting removal of more class action claims to federal
court. The Ninth Circuit in particular was unfriendly to these new
provisions, but, we had thought, the Supreme Court put the matter
to rest in 2014 (See our December 16, 2014 blog), and last year we
noted that the Ninth Circuit seemed to have accepted and was
applying the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court (See our
September 30, 2019 blog).

We may have spoken too soon, at least with respect to some Ninth
Circuit panels.

CAFA Removal Principles

The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) gives federal courts
jurisdiction over specified class actions if the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, the parties are minimally diverse,
and the putative class consists of at least 100 individuals.
Concerning the first requirement, the defendant must establish that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. To
satisfy this burden, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have
held that the defendant may "simply allege or assert that the
jurisdictional threshold has been met" and that the notice of
removal "need not contain evidentiary submissions but only
plausible allegations of jurisdictional elements." See Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Sys. Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89
(2014); Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 921 (9th
Cir. 2019).

Removing Wage and Hour Class Actions Under CAFA -- Facial and
Factual Attacks

To meet this burden in practice, employers in wage and hour cases
often submit an employee declaration that sets forth facts and
allegations supporting their conclusion that more than $5 million
is in controversy. The declarations often consist of reasonable
assumptions about the amount in controversy, which are based on the
putative class size, the putative class's workweeks, and the
violation rate of the claims at issue. As long as these assumptions
are reasonable and unchallenged by the plaintiff, a class
defendant's plausible case that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million will suffice - even in the absence of a proffer of
evidence.

That said, in Salter v. Quality Carriers, the Ninth Circuit
departed from the holdings in Owens and Arias and suggested the
possibility that a defendant's showing, even if plausible, might be
insufficient to remove under CAFA in the absence of extrinsic
evidence substantiating the jurisdictional allegations. 974 F.3d
959, 963-964 (9th Cir. Sep. 8, 2020). The panel explained that if a
plaintiff-employee mounts a "factual," as opposed to a "facial,"
attack on the defendant's jurisdictional allegations, this would
shift the burden back to the employer to produce competent proof
supporting its allegations. The court noted this proof would be
examined under the same evidentiary standard that governs in the
summary judgment context.

However, given the plaintiff's purely "facial" attack in Salter (a
misclassification wage and hour class action venued in California),
the Court did not explain what a "factual" attack would look like
in the wage and hour context. Instead, the panel merely repeated
its view that a factual attack is one that challenges the
rationality, or the factual basis, of an employer's assertion. But
in a recent case decided about two months after Salter, the Ninth
Circuit identified and analyzed a factual attack in a wage and hour
case under the Salter dicta. See Harris v. KMI Industrial, Inc. 980
F.3d 694 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2020).

In Harris, the plaintiff alleged in state court that the employer
failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required under California
law. The employer invoked CAFA to remove the case. And to meet its
burden to show that the jurisdictional amount was met, it
introduced a declaration from its human resources director. Relying
on the putative class size (442), the approximate number of
workweeks the putative class worked (39,834), the average rate of
pay for the putative class, and an assumption that the class
members missed one meal break and two rest breaks each workweek,
the director concluded that more than $7.1 million was in
controversy. The plaintiff brought a motion to remand, which was
granted by the district court, and the employer appealed.

In analyzing the employer's jurisdictional showing as set forth in
the declaration, the Ninth Circuit found that while, on its face,
the director's conclusion appeared reasonable, the declaration left
out a critical piece of information: it did not establish that the
putative class members worked shifts long enough to entitle them to
a meal or rest break. It simply assumed that all 442 putative class
members worked full eight hours shifts and were thus entitled to
meal and rest breaks for each shift worked. But because employees
in California are only entitled to a meal break if they work more
than 5 hours and to a rest break if they work more than 3.5 hours,
the Court held that the plaintiff had successfully attacked the
employer's conclusion that more than $5 million was at stake.

The Court explained that this was a "factual," rather than
"facial," attack on the employer's amount-in-controversy
calculations because it contested the truth of the underlying
factual assumptions -- i.e., that each class member worked shifts
long enough to entitle them to a meal or rest break. Challenged in
this way, the court stated, the employer was required to submit
competent evidence that the class members did indeed work shifts
long enough to entitle them to meal and rest breaks. But because
they failed to do so - either in support of its removal notice or
in its opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand - the employer
was unable to carry its burden of proving the statutory amount in
controversy.

Accordingly, the Court, over a dissent, affirmed the lower court's
remand of the class action. Adding insult to injury here was the
fact the employer, as its counsel explained at oral argument, did
indeed have evidence that would substantiate its contentions. In
other words, evidence that the workweeks the employer used for its
calculations consisted of full-time shifts, which would have
entitled the class members to one meal and two rest breaks per
shift. But according to this panel at least, its failure to include
any of this evidence in the record proved fatal to its removal
efforts.

In light of this case, it is likely that plaintiffs will now seek
to assert what they claim to be factual challenges to removal
notices in the Ninth Circuit, an approach some district courts have
already accepted.

Bottom Line

The Harris decision establishes that even though an employer's
assumptions may appear reasonable and plausibly show more than $5
million is at stake, in the Ninth Circuit at least, it may still be
prudent to explain that calculation in greater detail, and offer
evidence substantiating the allegations, in a declaration
accompanying the removal notice. [GN]


LA FONDA REST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Arias Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FIDELA ARIAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA FONDA REST CORP. (d/b/a LA FONDITA
RESTAURANT) and ERICA HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06182
(E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendant for their alleged unlawful pay
practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook at the
restaurant located at 49-11 69th Street, Woodside, New York, 11377
from approximately August 2018 until on or about August 1, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that although she worked in excess of 40
hours per week throughout her employment with the Defendants, the
Defendants failed to appropriately pay her minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for all the hours that she
worked.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to provide her any breaks or meal
periods of any kind;

     -- The Defendants did not require her to keep track of her
time, thereby failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours she worked; and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide her an accurate wage
statements, and any notice of her rate of pay and employer's
regular pay day.

La Fonda Rest Corp. operates a Mexican restaurant owned by Erica
Hernandez. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gathmann-Landini Class Action Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended November 1, 2020, that the class action
suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc., has been settled.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation.

This matter was settled on September 30, 2020 for an immaterial
amount.

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


LVNV FUNDING: Class Certification Ruling in Davis Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff and
Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CASEY DAVIS, as Independent
Administrator of the Estate of Guillermo Macia, Individually and on
Behalf of Class Defined Herein, Defendant and
Counterplaintiff-Appellee, (Alegis Group, LLC; Resurgent Capital
Services LP; and Sherman Financial Group, LLC, Third-Party
Defendants-Appellants), Case No. 5-19-0380 (Ill. App.), the
Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fifth District remanded the
Aug. 5, 2019 order of the circuit court of St. Clair County that
granted Davis's motion to certify a class as to Count I of his
counterclaim.

On Dec. 26, 2012, LVNV filed a complaint against Guillermo Macia in
the circuit court of St. Clair County.  The complaint requested
payment for a debt Macia owed to Chase Bank USA for use of a credit
card.  According to the complaint, Chase Bank USA assigned, for
value, its rights under the credit card agreement to LVNV "per
Exhibit B."  Thereafter, Macia filed a class action counterclaim
against LVNV, as well as third-party claims against Defendants
Alegis Group, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services LP, and Sherman
Financial Group, LLC.

Macia's counterclaim alleges that LVNV is a licensed debt
collection agency that is in the business of purchasing or
acquiring defaulted debts, including debts originally owed to
others and incurred for personal, family, or household purposes.
Count I of the counterclaim requests money damages as a result of
the Defendants' alleged violation of section 8b of the Collection
Agency Act.  In particular, count I alleges that the Defendants
violated section 8b of the Act in the following ways: (1) filing
suit without having an assignment in the form specified by section
8b and (2) filing suit without attaching an assignment in the form
specified by section 8b.

On Jan. 21, 2014, the circuit court was informed that Macia had
died, and Davis was substituted as the representative for his
estate.  On April 30, 2018, Davis filed an amended motion for
partial class certification, requesting class certification for
count I of the class action counterclaim only.  On Aug. 14, 2018,
after full briefing by the parties, the circuit court held a
hearing on the amended motion for partial class certification and
took the matter under advisement.

On Aug. 5, 2019, the circuit court entered an order certifying the
Illinois Class: "All individuals who have been named as a defendant
in a collection lawsuit filed in an Illinois court, since Jan. 1,
2008, to this date, where any of the 'debt collectors' was a named
Plaintiff, and the lawsuit, on the date it was filed, did not
comply with the provisions of the Illinois Collection Agency Act,
225 ILCS 425/1 et seq., in that the debt collector was not in
possession of a valid assignment of the purported debt and/or
failed to attach same to the Complaint."

Further, the Court finds that the term 'debt collector,' as defined
by the Illinois Class, means: "Debt Collectors": Counter-Defendant
and Third Party Defendants and any other entities or individuals
associated in fact with the above or which are owned, wholly or in
part, managed, agents, employed by, or otherwise controlled by the
above.

On Sept. 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a petition for leave to
appeal from the circuit court's order certifying the class.  On
Oct. 2, 2019, the Court entered an order allowing the appeal.

The Defendants ask the Court to consider whether there is a private
right of action under the Act and to reverse the class
certification on the basis that no such private right of action
exists.

The Appellate Court opines that by referring specifically to
assignments for collection, the plain language of section 8b
indicates that the legislature intended to exclude sales of an
account to a debt buyer from the section's reach.  Accordingly,
while a debt buyer is required to meet the requirements of section
2-403(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-403(a) (West
2018)), which requires that the assignee and owner of a cause of
action allege on oath in the pleading that he or she is the actual
bona fide owner thereof, and set forth how and when he or she
acquired title, a debt buyer is not subject to the requirements of
section 8b of the Act.

The Appellate Court also opines that the requirements of section 8b
of the Act (225 ILCS 425/8b (West 2018)) do not apply to debt
buyers pursuing collection litigation on their own behalf.  As
such, count I fails to state a claim against the Defendants based
on the facts alleged in the complaint.  As a result, the circuit
court erred in granting Davis's motion to certify a class as to
count I of his complaint.

Finally, the Defendants seek to have the Court review an order of
the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss as to Sherman
Financial Group, LLC, based on a lack of jurisdiction, as well as
an order compelling them to produce certain documents.

The Court holds that these orders are outside of its scope of
review.  Its jurisdiction over the appeal is based on Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019), which permits an
interlocutory appeal by permission of an order denying or granting
class certification.  The propriety of the order denying class
certification is in no way dependent on the merits of the order
denying the motion to dismiss as to Sherman Financial Group, LLC,
nor the order compelling discovery.  Accordingly, the Court has no
jurisdiction to review those orders as part of the appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court reversed the Aug. 5,
2019 order of the circuit court of St. Clair County that granted
Davis' motion for partial class certification as to count I of
Davis's counterclaim, which alleges a violation of section 8b of
the Collection Agency Act, and remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yazqhok5 from Leagle.com.

Nabil G. Foster and Louis J. Manetti Jr. -- LManetti@hinshawlaw.com
-- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for
appellants.

David Cates, of Cates Mahoney, LLC, of Swansea, and Sean K. Cronin
-- INFO@DRNPC.COM -- of Donovan Rose Nester, P.C., of Belleville,
for appellee.


MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Allows Consumer Class Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bell, Esq. -- robert.bell@rosenblatt-law.co.uk -- and
Danielle Carr, Esq. -- danielle.carr@rosenblatt-law.co.uk -- of
Rosenblatt, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a watershed
judgment handed down on 11th December 2020 the UK Supreme Court
gave the go ahead for a GBP14 billion collective proceedings
damages claim for breach of competition law against card issuer,
Mastercard. This will be the largest class action to date in the
UK.

The central issue was whether it was appropriate for the Courts to
certify a collective proceedings action (and therefore allow it to
procced to trial) where:

   -- the class representative was claiming an aggregate award on
behalf of the entire class instead of damages for each individual
class member; and

   -- each member of the class would receive a fixed sum from the
aggregate award regardless of the potential loss they had each
suffered during the infringement period.

The Supreme Court answered both the above points in the
affirmative.

The decision in this case breathes new life into the English
collective proceedings' regime in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It
will unblock a number of collective proceedings actions currently
stayed before the Courts awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling. It
will also give the green light to future mass collective
proceedings which seek an aggregate award and where the members of
the class each receive an award which may differ from their actual
loss.

Background
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 had introduced a refreshed collective
proceedings regime in the UK and amended the Competition Act 1998
("the Act"). Actions for competition law breaches could be
commenced in the Competition Appeals Tribunal ("CAT") by an
appropriate representative acting for a class of claimants,
provided the CAT approves such a class action.

Section 47B of Act states that the CAT may make a collective
proceeding order only:

   (a) if it considers that the person who brought the proceedings
is a person who, if the order were made, the CAT could authorise to
act as the representative in those proceedings in accordance with
subsection (8) [just and reasonable person to bring the claim],
and

   (b) in respect of claims which are eligible for inclusion in
collective proceedings.

S47B(6) of the Act further states that "Claims are eligible for
inclusion in collective proceedings only if the CAT considers that
they raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law and
are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings".

In 2016, former financial ombudsman, Walter Merricks, brought
collective proceedings on behalf of 45 million UK resident
Mastercard cardholders under the collective proceedings' provisions
of the Act, seeking an award of damages for the whole class (an
aggregate award), rather than damages for each individual class
member. The claim arose out of a 2007 European Commission decision
under which the Mastercard payment organization, consisting of
several thousand financial institutions, was held to be an
association of undertakings that had infringed Article 101(1) TFEU
(Article 81(1) EC as it was then) by fixing a high default
"multilateral interchange fee" which applied to cross border
transactions between May 1992 and December 2007. This was a fee
paid by the retailers to Mastercard for use of their payment card
network.

The CAT refused to certify the collective proceedings action on the
basis that claims were not suitable for an aggregate award of
damages and the proposed distribution of any award did not satisfy
the compensatory principle in common law.

Merricks appealed to the Court of Appeal which found in his favour.
Mastercard in turn appealed to the UK Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed Mastercard's appeal and remitted the
case back to the CAT for certification. The Court held that the CAT
had erred in law for a number of reasons. The principal grounds for
which the Supreme Court approved certification were as follows.

The "Broad Axe" Principle: Courts frequently must deal with
difficult issues in calculating damages. Courts do not deprive an
individual claimant of a trial merely because of these
quantification issues, provided there is a triable issue that the
claimant has suffered more than nominal loss. If these issues would
not have prevented an individual consumer's claim from proceeding
to trial, the CAT should not have stopped the collective
proceedings claim at the certification phase

The Court stated that it is a fundamental requirement of justice
that the court must do its best on the available evidence to
calculate damages with the information available. This was the
"broad axe" principle, and it applied to competition cases.

The Supreme Court held the CAT had erred in considering that
difficulties with incomplete data and interpreting that data was a
good reason to refuse certification. Civil courts and tribunals
frequently face problems with quantifying loss and the CAT owes a
duty to the class to carry out the task in a case of proven breach
of statutory duty coupled with a realistically arguable case that
some loss was suffered.

Act Dispenses with Common Law Compensatory Principle in Collective
Proceedings: - The Court held that the CAT was wrong to require
Merricks' proposed method of distributing aggregate damages to take
account of the loss suffered by each class member. A central
purpose of the power to award aggregate damages in collective
proceedings is to avoid the need for individual assessment of loss
and the Act expressly modifies the ordinary requirement for the
separate assessment of each claimant's loss (Section 47C of the
Act).

In short, the Supreme Court's decision clarifies the manner in
which certification may proceed, with important implications for
future collective proceedings (and the approach to damages) in the
competition space. It may be expected to prompt a renewed appetite
for pursuing mass collective proceedings in the CAT. [GN]


MDL 2573: Counterparties' Contact Info to Be Given to Rust Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LONDON SILVER FIXING, LTD., ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions, Case No.
14-MD-2573 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the
Defendants to promptly provide the requested contact information of
their Counterparties to Rust, Inc., the agent they chose to
effectuate the required notice.

On Aug. 5, 2020, the Court entered the Order Approving Class Notice
Plan, Preliminarily Approving Distribution Plan for Class Action
Settlement with Defendant Deutsche Bank, and Scheduling Hearing for
Final Approval of the Settlement.  The Deutsche Bank Settlement
Order requires that the Settlement Administrator will be
responsible for effectuating the Class Notice plan, including by
running potential members of the Settlement Class' addresses
through the National Change of Address Database to obtain the most
current address for each person.

The Plaintiffs wish that notice be provided to counterparties who
engaged in relevant Silver transactions with the Defendants during
the Settlement Class Period.  The parties have agreed that the
Defendants may use an agent of their choosing to send their
Counterparties the notice required by the Deutsche Bank Settlement
Order.

Therefore, Judge Caproni ordered the Defendants to provide the
requested contact information of their Counterparties (including
name, address, and telephone number, to the extent addresses and
telephone numbers are reasonably accessible from a common database)
to Rust promptly after their engagement of the agent.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8xdv6hp from Leagle.com.


MDL 2968: Initial Meeting in Generali Travel Suit Set for Jan. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERALI COVID-19 TRAVEL INSURANCE LITIGATION.
ORDER NO. 1, Master File No. 20-md-2968 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G.
Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York ordered all the parties to appear for the initial conference
on Jan. 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. by telephone ((888) 363-4749, with
access code 8140049).

To minimize costs and facilitate a manageable conference, the
parties are not required to attend the conference, and parties with
similar interests are expected to agree to the extent practicable
on a single attorney to act on their joint behalf at the
conference.

Persons who are not named as parties in the litigation but may
later be joined as parties or are parties in related litigation
pending in other federal and state courts are invited to attend the
conference call.

The conference will be held for the purposes specified in the
Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition.  The Counsel is
encouraged to advise the Court as soon as possible of any items
that should be added to or deleted from the agenda.

Attorneys admitted to practice and in good standing in any United
States District Court are admitted pro hac vice in the litigation.
Association of local co-counsel is not required.

Each Defendant is granted an extension of time for responding by
motion or answer to the complaint(s) until a date to be set at the
conference.

Pending the conference, all outstanding disclosure and discovery
proceedings are stayed and no further discovery will be initiated.
All parties are reminded of their obligation to preserve evidence
that may be relevant to the actions.  All orders by transferor
courts imposing dates for pleading or discovery are vacated.

The Order will also apply to related cases later filed in, removed
to, or transferred to the Court.

Judge Koeltl intends to appoint the Plaintiffs' lead counsel and/or
their liaison counsel.  Applications for these positions must be
filed with the Clerk's office by Jan. 21, 2021.  The Judge will
only consider attorneys who have filed a civil action in the
litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd332ubq from Leagle.com.


MDL 2984: Ashton Seeks Transfer of 5 Consumer Suits to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shelly Ashton, Jay Schoener, Ramon Ibarra, and Ellen
Moser seek approval from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on December 11, 2020, to transfer related
actions to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under MDL No. 2984, IN RE: Folgers Coffee Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The actions include:

   -- Frederick Tan v. The Folger Coffee Company et al.,
      Case No. 2:20-cv-09370 (C.D. Cal.);

   -- Shelly Ashton et al v. The J.M. Smucker Co. et al.,
      Case No. 5:20-cv-00992 (C.D. Cal.);

   -- Sorin, v. The Folger Coffee Company,
      Case No. 9:20-cv-80897 (S.D. Fla.);

   -- Moser v. The J. M. Smucker Company et al.,
      Case No. 1:20-cv-07074 (N.D. Ill.); and

   -- Mawby v. The Folger Coffee Company,
      Case No. 4:20-cv-00822 (W.D. Mo.).

Each of the related actions allege that Folgers deceptively markets
its ground coffee canisters by misrepresenting the "up to" serving
representation displayed prominently on the front of each
canister.

The briefing schedule in the motion to transfer states that:

   -- Notices of Appearance is due on or before December 29, 2020;

   -- Corporate Disclosure Statements are due on or before December
29, 2020;

   -- Responses due on or before January 5, 2021; and

   -- Reply, if any, is due on or before January 12, 2021.  

The Folger Coffee Company retails packaged coffee. The Company
offers ground, instant, single serve, and iced coffees through
through grocery stores, drug stores, and other large chain retail
stores, as well as online retailers.

The J.M. Smucker Company is the parent company of Folger Coffee.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation 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 September 30, 2020, that the Pennsylvania
Class Action has been dismissed.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747.

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.

American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1.

In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In
Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim
to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from
February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action,
the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received
loans from American Web Loan in 2017.

On October 26, 2020, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley
Capital Corporation were served with a new complaint in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Charles P. McDaniel v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed October 22, 2020, in
the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, as Case No.
20-C-169.

The plaintiff in the West Virginia Class Action Complaint filed his
putative class action alleging claims arising West Virginia state
law's regulating interest rates and other fees in connection with
consumer lending activities.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October
29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims.

On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a
settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement
Agreement was subject to court approval. At a hearing on November
4, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to approve the
settlement and ordered the parties to mediation in front of Judge
Novak of the Eastern District of Virginia in December of 2020.

On October 29, 2020, the parties to the Pennsylvania Class Action
reached a settlement pursuant to which AWL agreed to pay the
plaintiffs $200,000 and to forgive loans that they owed AWL. The
Medley Defendants obtained a full release and bore none of the
settlement amount. The Pennsylvania Class Action was dismissed with
prejudice on November 2, 2020.

The Medley Defendants and the other defendants believe the alleged
claims asserted in the Virginia Class Action and the West Virginia
putative class action are without merit and they are defending
these lawsuits vigorously.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.

MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Air Group, 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 company
continues to defend two putative class action suits related to it
initial public offering in August 2018 ("IPO").

The Company is subject to two putative class action lawsuits
alleging federal securities law violations in connection with its
initial public offering in August 2018, one in the Superior Court
of the State of Arizona and one in U.S. District Court of Arizona.


These purported class actions were filed in March and April 2020
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's IPO.

The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar
allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements in, or omitting material information from, the company's
IPO registration statement.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


Mesa Air said, "We do not currently believe that this matter is
likely to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated
results of operations, cash flows, or our financial position.
However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment
or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement
could materially and adversely impact our business, results of
operations, financial condition, and prospects."  

Mesa Air Group, Inc. operates as an airlines company that provides
regional air services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The
Company also operates as an online retailer of apparel and
accessories.  Mesa Air Group, Inc. was formerly known as Mesa Air
Shuttle, Inc. The Company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Phoenix, Arizona.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELENA CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06458 (E.D. Penn., December 23, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to Credit One Bank, N.A., specifically for its
telecommunication services. Credit One Bank purportedly sold the
alleged debt to the Defendant Midland Funding, who then contracted
Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
August 5, 2020, Defendant MCM sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the
alleged debt currently owed to Credit One Bank. However, the
Defendants' letter is deceptive, misleading, and unfair because it
failed to inform the Plaintiff the true ramifications of making a
payment, that making a partial payment with an acknowledgement of
the debt will restart the statute of limitations for a lawsuit to
occur.

The Defendants allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) and
Section 1692e(2)(A) for omitting material information creating a
false and misleading representation of the status of the debt, and
for falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of
the debt.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff has
been damaged. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court my deem
just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Jacobs Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUITA JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06466
(E.D. Penn., December 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank,
specifically an Old Navy credit card.

According to the complaint, Synchrony purportedly sold the alleged
debt to the Defendant Midland Funding, who then contracted
Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
September 17, 2020, Defendant MCM sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the
alleged debt currently owed to Synchrony Bank. The collection
letter provided the Plaintiff three options to settle its alleged
debt. However, third option was inadequately explained which
resulted in two different possible interpretations.

The Defendants' debt collection efforts violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(10) & 1692e(2) by making a false and misleading
representation, and for providing a letter that is open to more
than reasonable interpretation.

The Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the Defendants'
deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief that the Court my deem just and proper, the suit
says.

The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Financial Advisors Sues Over Deferred Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Morgan Stanley
on Dec. 30 was hit with a proposed class action claiming the
investment bank refused to pay deferred compensation to many
financial advisors (FAs) who left the company, in violation of the
federal law governing employee benefit plans.

Matthew Shafer, a former Morgan Stanley FA represented by Motley
Rice, filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court claiming the
company denied him more than $500,000 in deferred compensation he
had earned when he left before fully vesting in a company benefit
plan. [GN]


NAVIHEALTH INC: Settlement in Bentley Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL KATHLEEN BENTLEY, Plaintiff v. NAVIHEALTH, INC.
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1298 TWR (WVG)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California grants Bentley's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Judge Janis L. Sammartino took the Motion under consideration on
the papers without oral argument following which the Action was
transferred to Judge Robinson.  Having reviewed the Plaintiff's
Motion, the Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and declarations
thereto, Judge Robinson finds on a preliminary basis that the
Settlement Agreement appears to be within the range of
reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final
approval by the Court.  Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiff's
Motion.

For purposes of the Settlement only, the Judge conditionally
certifies the following two classes of Class Members:

   a. California Class Members:

      Any and all persons who are or were employed by naviHealth
      Inc. as Care Management Employees (which includes all
      employees occupying the various job titles categorized
      under naviHealth's Clinical job family, including but not
      limited to the following job titles: Care Coordinator,
      including the job titles Lead Care Coordinator, Home Health
      Care Coordinator, Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Flex Team
      Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Lead Pre-Service Coordinator,
      Patient Care Coordinator, Inpatient Care Coordinator,
      Skilled Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient and
      Transitional Care Coordinator, Centralized Care
      Coordinator, Transitional Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care
      Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator Team Lead,
      Regional Care Coordinator, UM Care Coordinator, UM Team
      Lead, and Post-Acute Care Coordinator; Case Manager or Care
      Manager, including the job titles High Risk Case Manager,
      Telephonic High Risk Case Manager and Team Lead, Intensive
      Case Manager, Clinical Care Manager; Utilization Review
      Coordinator; and Appeals and Denials Coordinator, Denials
      Coordinator, Denials-Appeals Team Lead, Quality Improvement
      Organizational Appeals Coordinator) in the State of
      California from May 15, 2015 through June 24, 2020 and who
      have not previously signed a release covering the claims
      alleged in the Bentley Action; and

   b. FLSA Class Members:

      Any and all persons who are or were employed by naviHealth
      Inc. as Care Management Employees (which includes all
      employees occupying the various job titles categorized
      under naviHealth's Clinical job family, including but not
      limited to the following job titles: Care Coordinator,
      including the job titles Lead Care Coordinator, Home Health
      Care Coordinator, Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Flex Team
      Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Lead Pre-Service Coordinator,
      Patient Care Coordinator, Inpatient Care Coordinator,
      Skilled Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient and
      Transitional Care Coordinator, Centralized Care
      Coordinator, Transitional Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care
      Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator Team Lead,
      Regional Care Coordinator, UM Care Coordinator, UM Team
      Lead, and Post-Acute Care Coordinator; Case Manager or Care
      Manager, including the job titles High Risk Case Manager,
      Telephonic High Risk Case Manager and Team Lead, Intensive
      Case Manager, Clinical Care Manager; Utilization Review
      Coordinator; and Appeals and Denials Coordinator, Denials
      Coordinator, Denials-Appeals Team Lead, Quality Improvement
      Organizational Appeals Coordinator) in California from
      May 15, 2015 through June 24, 2020 and who have not
      previously signed a release covering the claims alleged in
      the Mae Barbee, et al. v. naviHealth, Inc.,
      Case No. 3:19-cv-00119 putative class and collective action
      filed in the United States District Court, Middle District
      of Tennessee on Feb. 6, 2019 and/or Bentley Action.

The Judge approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of
Settlement to Class Members and finds that the method selected for
communicating the preliminary approval of the Settlement to Class
Members is the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to
notice, and therefore satisfies due process.

For Settlement purposes only, the Judge appoints Plaintiff Jill
Bentley as the class representative.  Further, he preliminarily
approves the Service Award to the Plaintiff in an amount not to
exceed $12,000.  The Service Award will be subject to final
approval of the Court.

The Judge appoints London D.
Meservy--london@meservylawpc.com--Meservy Law, P.C., 401 West A
Street, Suite 1712, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: 858.779.1276;
and Matthew S. Dente--matt@dentelaw.com--Dente Law, P.C., 5040
Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA 92122, Telephone: 619.550.3475 as the
Class Counsel for Class Members.  Further, he preliminarily
approves a Class Counsel Fees Award not to exceed $670,000 and a
Class Counsel Costs Award not to exceed $30,000.  The Class Counsel
Fees Award and the Class Counsel Costs Award will be subject to
final approval of the Court.

The Judge also appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator
to administer the Notice of Settlement pursuant to the terms in the
Settlement Agreement.

No later than 30 calendar days after the entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order, the Defendant will provide the Settlement
Administrator with the Class Information.  No later than 14
calendar days after receipt of the Class Information, the
Settlement Administrator will use the Class Information to mail the
Notice of Settlement to the Class Members after conducting a
national change of address search and a skip trace for the most
current address of all former employee Class Members and will
update such addresses as necessary.

No later than 45 calendar days after the date the Settlement
Administrator mails the Notice of Settlement to Class Members
(i.e., the Response Deadline), any Class Member requesting
exclusion from the Settlement MUST SUBMIT his/her Request for
Exclusion by mail to the Settlement Administrator as instructed in
the Notice of Settlement.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for May 5, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
The Parties will file all papers in support of final approval of
the Settlement no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.  The Class Counsel will file their motion for the Class
Counsel Fees Award and the Class Counsel Costs Award no later than
14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

Pending further Orders of the Court, all proceedings in the matter
except those contemplated in the Preliminary Approval Order and in
the Settlement Agreement are stayed.

The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or continue the
Final Approval Hearing from time to time without further notice to
the Class Members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y93aok2x from Leagle.com.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation 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
appeal taken by intervening class members from the court's denial
of their request for exclusion from a class action settlement
remains pending.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. (NI) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts.

Some of the U.S. Actions named both Navistar International
Corporation (NIC) and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar
to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, one or more of the
Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions seek to certify a class of
persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased
and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a
model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI
failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class
Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of
warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and
negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action").

In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement
agreement to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the
Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May
28, 2019. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and
natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle
equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet
EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction
technology, provided that the vehicle was purchased or leased in
the U.S.

Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the
parties establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash
(the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total
value of $135 million (the "Settlement Fund"); (2) NIC and NI
contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay
all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys' fees
and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class;
(3) NI commit to make available rebates with a face value in the
aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement
class release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and
potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the
U.S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to
third-party property.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value
remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims
are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other
fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the Waterfall).

The Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in
the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind,
and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way.
Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at
$35 million. The company is waiting for the final adjudication of
the claims by the administrator. It is possible that a Waterfall
from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund could occur.

On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement
Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of
the class who opted out would not receive any benefit from the
Settlement Agreement or be bound by it.

Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement
Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court
entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement
to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the
motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Final Order and Judgment. On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI
funded $85 million to the Cash Fund.

In February 2020, three class members intervened in the MDL Action
and filed motions asking the court to exclude them from the
settlement or to permit them to opt out after the opt out deadline.
In April and June 2020, the court denied these motions. In May
2020, two of the intervening class members appealed the court's
April 2020 order to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company's
opposition brief was filed on August 19, 2020. Oral argument was
held on November 2, 2020.

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.

NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation 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 Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc.,
and Harbour International Trucks, continues to defend class action
suits related to MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation
(NIC), Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour
International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia.

Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action
lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including
Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased
heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11,
MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA
regulations.

On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016
decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether
misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials.

Navistar said, "The next step will be an attendance before the case
management judge regarding the details of the notice of
certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance
has been set."

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

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.

NEONODE INC: Purported Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonode Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 27, 2020, that the
purported class action suit initiated by a putative stockholder of
the company has been dismissed.

On August 26, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode Inc. filed a
purported class action lawsuit (C.A. No. 2020-0701-AGB) in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and the Board of
Directors of the Company for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and
Proposal 6 in the proxy statement filed by the Company on August
20, 2020 for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the
Company.

These proposals for shareholder approval related to the private
placement by the Company on August 5, 2020 in which two directors
and the chief executive officer of the Company participated.

The relief sought by the plaintiff included a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposal 5 and
Proposal 6.

On September 13, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to also
enjoin the stockholder vote on Proposal 1 in the Proxy Statement
concerning election of directors.

In response, the Company filed definitive additional materials to
the Proxy Statement on September 18, 2020. The plaintiff withdrew
his motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder votes on
Proposals 1, 5, and 6 based upon the definitive additional
materials to the Proxy Statement.

On November 23, 2020, the Court entered an order to dismiss the
lawsuit.

Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical
infrared touch technology.  The Stockholm, Sweden-based Company's
patented technology offers features, including the ability to sense
an object's size, depth, velocity, pressure, and proximity to any
type of surface. The company is based in Stockholm, Sweden.

NEOVASC INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Neovasc,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN) securities between October 10, 2018 and October
27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 5, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets products for cardiovascular diseases,
including the Tiara technology and the Reducer. The Company's
Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina by
altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system.

On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against
the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted
concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack
of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that
additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary."

The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, 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
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) that 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) that blinding is critical when studying a
placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data;
(6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely
to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Neovasc securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
[url="]filling+out+this+contact+form.[/url] There is no cost or
obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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



NESTLE WATERS: Chong Ruling in Product Liability Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Connie Chong filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Connie Chong, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nestle Waters North
America Inc., and Does 1 through 10., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-10901-DMG-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks restitution, disgorgement and/or the imposition of a
constructive trust upon all profits, benefits and compensation that
Nestle Waters North America obtained from the sale of their
"Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water" resulting from unjust
enrichment/breach of quasi contract and violation of California's
Business and Professions Code and Civil Code.

Chong alleges that Nestle misrepresented that their bottled water
is made from 100% Arrowhead Mountain spring water as shown on their
label (with the background picture of the Arrowhead Mountain and
the lake in front of the mountain) despite the fact that it is only
one of their six sources.

Ms. Chong seeks a review of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2020,
granting Defendant Nestle Waters North America, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Chong v. Nestle Waters
North America, et al., Case No. 20-56373, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 23, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Connie Chong Mediation Questionnaire is due on
December 30, 2020;

   -- Appellant Connie Chong opening brief is due on February 22,
2021;

   -- Appellees Does and Nestle Waters North America, Inc.
answering brief is due on March 24, 2021 and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CONNIE CHONG, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Juan Hong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG
          4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 509-6505
          E-mail: jhong48@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented
by:

          Deema Abini, Esq.
          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
          Telephone: (213) 620-7732
          E-mail: dabini@whitecase.com
                  bmerryman@whitecase.com

NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, 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 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend
a purported securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its
executive officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided
on May 22, 2019.

Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided
revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020.

The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in
the market price of our shares following the issuance of the
revised guidance on August 1, 2019.

NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

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

NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.

NEXTIER OILFIELD: Pays $125,000 to Woods Counsel as Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 30,
2020, that they subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the class action suit
entitled, Woods v. Batzer, et al., C.A. No. 2019-590-JRS.

On June 16, 2019, Keane Group, Inc. and C&J Energy Services, Inc.
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which
Keane and C&J agreed to combine their respective businesses in a
merger of equals (the Proposed Transaction).

On July 16, 2019, Keane filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission a Registration Statement on Form S-4, which also served
as a draft of the joint proxy statement/prospectus to be sent to
Keane's stockholders to solicit stockholder approval, in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, of a proposed issuance of Keane
common stock (the Share Issuance Proposal).

On July 31, 2019, the members of Keane's board of directors were
named as defendants in a stockholder class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by one of Keane's stockholders. The suit
is captioned Woods v. Batzer, et al., C.A. No. 2019-590-JRS.

The complaint alleged that Keane's directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by
failing to disclose to Keane stockholders all material information
necessary to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed
Transaction. After the complaint was filed, while maintaining that
no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws,
Keane made additional disclosures concerning the Proposed
Transaction in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 11, 2019,
to moot the claims asserted in the Woods action.

On October 21, 2019, the Court approved a notice under which the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action 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 in
connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Form
8-K filed on October 11, 2019.

On October 31, 2019, Keane and C&J completed the Proposed
Transaction, and immediately thereafter Keane changed its name to
NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc.

NexTier subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel
for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court has not
been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of
the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness.

Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.

NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Securities Class Actions in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex DeMarban, writing for Anchorage Daily News, reports that the
company behind the controversial Pebble copper and gold mining
proposal in Southwest Alaska faces lawsuits from investors claiming
it misled shareholders, contributing to plunging stock values since
this summer.

Two lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in New York in December
assert that Northern Dynasty Minerals violated federal securities
laws when Pebble executives did not fully and accurately provide
information about the project. Northern Dynasty's stock price has
plunged 85% since the summer.

Developer Pebble Limited Partnership and parent company Northern
Dynasty have for years sought to build the mine about 200 miles
southwest of Anchorage. The proposal drew fierce pushback because
it would be built near the headwaters of the valuable Bristol Bay
salmon fishery.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late November denied Pebble's
effort to win a permit, causing Northern Dynasty stocks to lose
half their value that day alone.

Pebble says it is appealing that decision.

The lawsuits are an additional challenge for a company that has
seen its fortunes plunge this year, including after two executives
were caught discussing the project in secretly recorded videos that
were released by an environmental group in September. The mine was
also condemned by both of Alaska's Republican senators.

A lawsuit filed Dec. 4 features McCarthy Lodge co-owner Neil Darish
as the lead plaintiff.

Like the second lawsuit filed in mid-December, it accuses Pebble
officials of making "materially false and misleading statements."
It also says they failed to disclose, among other things, that the
project was not in line with federal law and that the company
planned a much larger project than proposed.

Sean Magee, with Northern Dynasty, said the company could not
comment on the lawsuits.

Pebble has called the Corps' permit rejection "political," and said
the agency had previously found that the mine could safely coexist
with the fishery.

Northern Dynasty has said it has no formal, defined plans for
Pebble beyond the 20-year plan submitted to the Corps for approval.
Additional development beyond the submitted plan, the company has
said, would require new state and federal reviews.

Northern Dynasty's stock on Dec. 30 sold for 33 cents a share. It
sold for $2.23 in late July.

In an interview on Dec. 30, Darish said he bought Northern Dynasty
stock starting in 2017, with the hope that the project could be
built without putting salmon at risk while still bringing economic
benefits to Alaska.

But in September, Northern Dynasty President Ron Thiessen and
now-former Pebble CEO Tom Collier were caught in the secretly
recorded videos making statements that top Alaska politicians have
said are false. They described a vision for the mine that was much
broader than the 20-year project the company has applied for.

Darish said Collier lost his credibility. Collier's statements
harmed communities and people that could have benefited from the
project, Darish said.

Darish said he lost more than $10,000 because of his Pebble
investment.

He said he agreed to be named in the lawsuit to "shine a light on
the truth."

"I'm seeing contradictions (from Pebble) and I can also see that
Pebble made big giant mistakes," he said. [GN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Northern
Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty" or "the Company")
(NYSE:NAK) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated ,
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
21, 2017 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 2, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3ndJ1ZO 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. Northern Dynasty's Pebble Project was at
odds with the guidelines of the Clean Water Act as well as the
public interest. The Company's plan for the Pebble Project was
larger in scope and longer in duration than what it conveyed to the
public. Due to these facts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would
deny the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project.
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 Northern Dynasty, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 30 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.

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=11876&wire=1Lead
Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021Class 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.

Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11876&wire=1Lead
Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021Class Period: May 15, 2017 -
November 30, 2020

Allegations against NERV include that: (i) the truth about the
feedback received from the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2"
meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial
formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the
United States; (iii) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its
primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable
of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the
Company's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an
NDA; (v) reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA
would lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were
inadequate and not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=11876&wire=1Lead
Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021Class Period: March 28, 2019 -
December 9, 2020

Allegations against QIWI include that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls
related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2)
consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary
fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's
ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to
pre-paid cards; and (3) 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 BroadwaySuite 304New York, NY
10002Tel. 212.425.1140Fax. 866.699.3880E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


ONEKIND.25 INC: Conner Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------
Onekind.25, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Onekind.25, Inc. doing
business as: Cocokind, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06298 (E.D.
N.Y., Dec. 29, 2020).

Onekind.25 LLC is located in Bloomfield Hills, MI, United States
and is part of the Food Wholesalers 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


ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit, is pending.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. As noted
above, Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief Executive
Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019.

On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and
misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business.

Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion,
giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020. On April 23, 2020,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing
on this motion on September 24, 2020. The court has not yet ruled
on this motion.  

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.

ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Action Certification Ruling Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Carolina recently upheld the class
action certification of a group of plaintiffs in Orange County,
North Carolina, being represented by Brooks Pierce attorneys Matt
Tynan and Bob King. This ruling allows the lawsuit, which could
result in millions of dollars in impact fees being returned to
residential developers and individuals, to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all people similarly situated.

At issue in the lawsuit, Zander v. Orange County, are fees charged
to individuals and builders who constructed new residences in
Orange County between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2016. During that
time, the County charged a purported "school impact fee" for all
new residential construction, with fees as high as $11,423 for a
single family home.

The named plaintiffs in the suit bought a property in Chapel Hill
to build a home for themselves, with a construction budget of about
$200,000. The school impact fee ended up costing them more than 5
percent of their total construction budget.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Orange County and Chapel
Hill, challenging the legality of the fees on behalf of themselves
and other individuals and developers who built homes in Orange
County while the fees were in place. The lawsuit argues that, while
state law may have allowed the imposition of impact fees, the fees
charged by the defendants were unlawful. Plaintiffs also contend
that an Orange County ordinance requires the County to refund
certain portions of the fees collected.

To have the case certified as a class action, Brooks Pierce had to
show that numerous parties who paid the fees possessed common
issues of law or fact that predominated over individual issues.

Shortly after the Superior Court Order certifying the class action
was entered in August 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal
to the North Carolina Supreme Court contending that the classes
could not be certified because certain statutes of limitations had
run and therefore many class members could not recover. In an
Opinion issued on Dec. 18, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the
defendants' arguments. The case will now return to the trial court
for a determination of liability and the amount of damages suffered
by class members.

Additional information regarding the case can be found at
www.brookspierce.com/impactfeeclassaction. [GN]


PEPPER & PEACH: Brown et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming
----------------------------------------------------------------
DELVAKIO BROWN, CAMERON WALLS, BRIANNA EDWARD, and TYLER GRANT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. PEPPER & PEACH, LLC, JUAN EDGERTON, and TAMI LENORE, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01092 (M.D. Tenn., December 21, 2020) bring this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their
alleged illegal pay practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid
employees, allege that the Defendants kept a portion of tips earned
by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers through cash
transactions from the Defendants' customers and kept all tips they
earned through electronic transactions, including credit card and
debit card transactions. Additionally, the Defendants regularly
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers
for all the hours they worked, including their work in November
2020 and early December 2020. As a result, the Defendants failed to
pay them the full minimum and overtime wage for all time they
worked.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.

Pepper & Peach, LLC operates Pepper + Peach Hot Chicken restaurants
and Peach Cobbler Factory stores in Davidson and Rutherford
Counties in Tennessee. The Individuals Defendants are owners of the
Corporate Defendant who are responsible for its employment
decisions and for all its day-to-day operations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union St., Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Tel: (615) 244-2202
          Fax: (615) 252-3792
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


PINTEREST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PINS) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Pinterest between May 16, 2019 and
November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Pinterest investors under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Pinterest made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was
reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated
Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per
user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing
advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

On October 31, 2019, the Company announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S.
MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than
the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed its
consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S.
advertising revenue. The Company only marginally increased its full
year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future
quarters. On this news, the price of the Company's shares steeply
declined by 17%, to close at $20.86 on November 1, 2019.

In addition, a derivative action was filed against certain officers
and members of the Board of Directors of the Company alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and asserting other claims in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding these
matters, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

The deadline for investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Pinterest pursuant to the Offering and/or during the
Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit is January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


POWER & ENERGY: Faces Peters Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE PETERS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. POWER & ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00473-NT (D. Maine, December 21, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maine
Payment Wage Law, and the Maine Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff, who worked as a Commissioning Engineer for the
Defendants from approximately June 2019 until August 2019, brings
this complaint to challenge the Defendant's alleged
misclassification of its employees as exempt from overtime.

The Plaintiff asserts that he routinely worked over 70 hours in a
given week as reflected and recorded in the Defendant's pay and
time records. But, instead of receiving overtime compensation at
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, the Defendant paid
him "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked.

Power & Energy Systems, Inc. provides technical support to power
generation companies, including project management, engineering,
and construction/start-up services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          SOLIDARITY LAW, PLLC
          9 Longmeadow Rd.
          Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
          Tel: (207) 844-4243
          E-mail: Jyoung@solidarity.law
  
                - and –

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

                - and –

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


PRESSED JUICERY: Faces Tunkett Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON TUNKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-09287 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of hourly workers employed by the Defendant for wage and
hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its
non-exempt hourly employees at the correct overtime rate when they
worked greater than eight hours in one day or 40 hours in one week
and failed to provide for meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly employee store manager,
selling cold-pressed juices and vegan and dairy-free foods at
Defendant's retail stores.

Pressed Juicery is a company that provides cold-pressed juices.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
           JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
           480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
           San Mateo, CA 94401
           Telephone: (650) 781-8000
           Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
           E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Facing Aniello Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on December 9,
2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit
entitled, Aniello v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-08578.

On August 22, 2020, Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. (PTI), Yumanity
Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Yumanity Holdings, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (Holdings) and Pangolin Merger
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
PTI, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization, as amended.

Following the announcement of the proposed Merger and as of the
filing of these Supplemental Disclosures, nine lawsuits were filed
by purported stockholders of the Company challenging the proposed
Merger.

The first lawsuit, brought as a putative class action, is captioned
Aniello v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 14, 2020).

The remaining lawsuits, brought by the plaintiffs individually, are
captioned Culver v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-08595 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 15, 2020); Donolo v.
Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01400 (D. Del.
filed Oct. 16, 2020); Straube v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:20-cv-08653 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 16, 2020); Beck v.
Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08783
(S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 21, 2020); Dreyer v. Proteostasis
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-05193 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct.
28, 2020); Kopkin v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No.
1:20-cv-12103 (D. Mass. filed Nov. 23, 2020); Merritt v.
Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10275
(S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 6, 2020); and Koh v. Proteostasis
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10296 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec.
7, 2020).

The complaints name the Company and the Company's board of
directors as defendants. The Aniello complaint names Yumanity as an
additional defendant. The Donolo complaint names Yumanity and
Merger Sub as additional defendants.

While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the
Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and
denies the allegations in the pending actions described above, in
order to moot plaintiffs' disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and
possible expense and business delays, and provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company has determined
voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive
Proxy Statement related to plaintiffs' claims with the supplemental
disclosures.

Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. On the
contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in the
complaints described above that any additional disclosure was or is
required or material.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/34TRUkD.

Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., is an innovative biopharmaceutical
company committed to the discovery and development of novel
therapeutics that treat diseases caused by an imbalance in the
proteostasis network, a set of pathways that control protein
biosynthesis, folding, trafficking and clearance. The company is
based in Boston, Massachusetts.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Tosses Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No.
2:19-cv-20839-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Prudential is a large and well-established company engaged in the
sale of insurance and in the provision of other financial products
and services, in the United States and internationally.  Consistent
with the nature of life insurance contracts, Prudential collects
premiums from policyholders and, in return, assumes an obligation
to make a payment to the policy beneficiaries upon the death of the
insured policyholder.  The Amended Complaint recognizes that life
insurance policies are long-duration contracts.

The securities fraud action seeks to recover losses allegedly
sustained as a result of an insurance company's failure to speak
truthfully about the insufficiency of policy reserves.  According
to the Amended Complaint, the market reacted poorly and drastically
to the news of the second quarter reserve charges and related
negative news.  It avers that Prudential's stock price decline more
than 10%, from a close of $101.31 per share on July 31, 2019, to a
close of $91.09 per share on Aug. 1, 2019, on massive, abnormally
high volume of over than 7.6 million shares traded.

Lead Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
brings the putative class action pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the common stock of Prudential Financial,
Inc. between Feb. 15, 2019, and Aug. 2, 2019, inclusive.

The Amended Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) a claim for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (2) a control person claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

In brief, the Plaintiff contends that Prudential disregarded
indications that certain policies in its life insurance business
presented an increased mortality risk, which required that
additional funds be set aside, or reserved, to cover the risk.  It
alleges that, in spite of its awareness of the negative mortality
information, and contrary to the assurances provided to investors,
Prudential failed, during the Class Period, to update mortality
estimates and actuarial assumptions and to take what the Plaintiff
contends would have been a corresponding increase in reserves. The
claimed securities fraud violation consists of allegedly misleading
statements about the adequacy of reserves, the method for setting
and updating reserves, and the overall strength of Prudential's
earnings and income.

Presently before the Court is the motion filed by Defendant
Prudential and individual co-Defendants Charles Lowrey, Kenneth Y.
Tanji, and Robert M. Falzon to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiff has opposed the Motion.

The Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the Rule 10b-5 claim on
several grounds.  Among other deficiencies, they argue, the Amended
Complaint fails to set forth particularized facts indicating why
the alleged actionable statements and omissions were misleading.
They further argue that the Rule 10b-5 claim fails for two
additional reasons: failure to plead scienter with the requisite
particularity and failure to plead loss causation.

Judge Chesler has divided the claims into two groups: statements
allegedly misrepresenting the adequacy of reserves and statements
allegedly misrepresenting facts related to the process for setting
and updating reserves.

Judge Chesler opines that the Amended Complaint as a whole rests on
a shaky and ultimately unsound foundation.  It leaps from repots of
two quarters of adverse mortality experience in certain life
insurance policies to the claim that the Defendants knowingly
understated the company's reserves.  Missing, however, are facts
which plausibly connect the Hartford block's allegedly poor
performance beginning in July 2018 and some known deficiency in
reserves or even a detected need to update assumptions sooner than
the 2019 annual review process.  Also missing are any facts
indicating that, from mid-February 2019 through July 2019, the
Defendants knew or disregarded that the reserves were
insufficient.

In 2013, Prudential expanded its Individual Life business by
acquiring 700,000 insurance policies, with a collective face amount
of $141 billion, which had been issued by another insurance company
known as The Hartford. (Hereinafter, the Court will refer to these
acquired policies as the "Hartford block.") The quality of the
Hartford block, and in particular its purportedly insufficient
underwriting, forms the bedrock of Plaintiff's claim that
Defendants misled investors about the soundness of its Individual
Life reserves and related matters. Plaintiff bases its allegations
concerning the overall weakness of the Hartford block mainly on
information provided by three former employees of Prudential,
identified in the Amended Complaint as FE1, FE2, and FE3.

Even assuming the well-pleaded facts of the Amended Complaint are
true, and one line of insurance policies experienced
greater-than-expected policyholder deaths, there is simply no
plausible demonstration that the Defendants made misleading
statements about reserves during the Class Period, Judge Chesler
writes.  At most, and drawing all inferences in favor of the
Plaintiffs, it appears that Prudential may have incorrectly
predicted the reserves needed to meet its future obligations in the
Individual Life business.  An error does not, however, constitute
fraud, and as previously noted, clairvoyance as to future
developments--in the case, the reserve charge taken as a result of
the 2019 annual assumptions review--is not the standard applied to
securities fraud actions.

For these reasons, Judge Chesler granted the Defendants' motion and
dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Moreover, because there is no
indication that the Plaintiff could allege facts curing the
deficiencies in the Amended Complaint, leave to further amend is
not be granted.  An appropriate Order will be filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yb4s5xaa from Leagle.com.


PRUITHEALTH INC: Underpays Health Care Workers, Coley Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TAKISHA COLEY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUITHEALTH, INC., PRUITHEALTH -
FRANKLIN, LLC, and PRUITHEALTH - AUSTELL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05198-ELR (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2020) arises from the
Defendants alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid health
aide from approximately December 2017 through September 2019 in the
Defendant's Austell, Georgia nursing rehabilitation center.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated
hourly-paid health workers regularly worked "off the clock", but
were not compensated by the Defendant because the Defendant did not
allow them to "clock in" when they are working during overtime
hours. In addition, the Defendant allegedly altered its employees'
time records to reduce their recorded hours in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid health care workers were not paid overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Corporate Defendants operate nursing and rehabilitation
centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Tel: (973) 898-0404
          E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com

                - and –

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


RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DARRENIA JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW USA, INC., dba New York Rainbow USA
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11714 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2020)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

Plaintiff James was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Rainbow USA, Inc. owns and operates a chain of apparel stores. The
Company retails dresses, tops, sweaters, blazers, jackets and coat,
jeans, skirts, pants, leggings, shorts, lingerie, shoes, hosiery,
jewelry, and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, 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 consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841, is pending.

In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the
Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all
three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions.

On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman,
and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is
styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.

On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall,
the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former
director Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the
Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

RCI said, "As of December 12, 2020, briefing on the motion to
dismiss is complete, and we are currently waiting for the court to
rule on the motion. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend against this action. This action is in its preliminary
phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated."

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) ("Restaurant
Brands") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Restaurant Brands on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands common stock
between April 29, 2019, and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant
Brands common stock during the Class Period may, no later than
February 19, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/restaurant-brands-international-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=restaurant_brands.

Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation and headquartered in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 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 SEC. 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 complaint
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 4%, from a close of
$68.45 per share on October 25, 2019, to close at $64.86 per share
on October 28, 2019.

The complaint 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 wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Restaurant Brands investors may, no later than February 19, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and
that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit
www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Restaurant
Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in QSR:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11870&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Restaurant Brands International
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's 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 the Company's business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders have until February 19, 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 QSR 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]


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 31 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.

HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=11868&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
Class Period: November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016

Allegations against HPQ include that: (a) HP's channel inventory
management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to
customers that did not need or want the product in order to
artificially increase revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies to customers outside of designated regions at
unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues
and profits; (c) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to
customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further
down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics;
and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about
HP's business condition and prospects were materially false and
misleading when made.

Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11868&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
Class Period: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019

Allegations against QSR include that: (1) the Company's 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 the
Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis.

Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=11868&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
Class Period: August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020

Allegations against TRIT include that: (1) the extent to which
Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with
Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium
faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its
ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result,
Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos
platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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]


RNT TAVERN: Maystrenko Alleges Discrimination at Ladies Bar Events
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX MAYSTRENKO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RNT TAVERN, INC., individually and dba CAMEL'S BREATH
INN, TANYA ARMAS, STELLA BENTON, WILD PAUL, INC. and DOES 1-50,
Case No. 37-2020-00047469-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
Dec. 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence and violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,
the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and the Business & Professions
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated several of
California's anti-discrimination statutes by advertising,
promoting, and hosting discriminatory "Ladies Night" events at
Defendant Camel's Breath bar during which females only were offered
and/or provided discounts on alcoholic beverages, while male and
non-binary persons were not offered the and/or provided the same
full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges,
or services, solely on the basis of sex and/or gender identity. The
disparate, sex-based treatment occurred in relation to multiple
events during 2018 and 2019.

RNT Tavern, Inc. is doing business as Camel's Breath Inn situated
in the County of San Diego, State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. WILLIAMS
          3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. 202-A
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 259-0285
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3253
          E-mail: djw2esq@gmail.com

SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Consolidate Duplicative Suits Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 motion to
consolidated all duplicative cases into a multidistrict litigation
(MDL) before the judge presiding over the Oklahoma case, has been
granted

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson and its subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of
their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to
broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the
farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated
amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended
complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.
On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed
on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the
Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma
denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2020,
plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case moved for leave to amend their
complaint. The Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted
the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on February 21, 2020. The Oklahoma case is
ongoing.

On May 27, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the action in the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the first-to-file rule.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 17, 2020, and the Company
filed its reply on July 1, 2020. The motion is fully briefed and
awaiting the Court's decision.

On September 18, 2020, another named grower plaintiff filed another
duplicate class action in the District Court of Kansas against the
same defendants as the Colorado action. On October 13, 2020,
Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file
doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed
cases pending in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Colorado. Briefing
on that motion was completed on December 15, 2020.

On October 8, 2020, new named grower plaintiffs filed another
duplicate class action in the Northern District of California
against the same defendants as the Colorado and Kansas actions. The
Company waived service of the Complaint on December 11, 2020.

On October 23, 2020, the District Court of Kansas stayed
proceedings in that action (other than those related to the
first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file
motion and the MDL consolidation motion discussed below. On
November 12, 2020, the District Court of Colorado stayed proceeding
in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file
motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL
consolidation motion discussed below.

On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action moved to
consolidate all of these duplicative cases into a MDL before the
judge presiding over the Oklahoma case. Briefing on that motion was
completed on November 6, 2020, and oral argument on the motion
occurred on December 3, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the panel
ordered that all actions be consolidated in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. Given the panel's ruling on
consolidation, the Company does not expect rulings on the
first-to-file motions in the various actions described above.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions.
If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.

SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 motion to dismiss
the complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
remains pending.

On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and
Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers
and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company, Inc. ("WMS), were named in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each
seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed.

The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and
maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and
depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and
compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present.

The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively
sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways:
(1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving
Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS;
and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with
plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs
allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative
class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial
purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019.
Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28,
2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss,
on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they
intended to file an amended consolidated complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20,
2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its
Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler
chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and
their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS. Plaintiffs bring their
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of employees at broiler
chicken and turkey processing plants and allege that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the
compensation paid to them.

On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly
identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the
Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the
third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit.

On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the Company. Plaintiffs'
oppositions were originally due on April 24, 2020 and defendants'
replies were due on May 21, 2020.

However, on March 20, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Second
Amended Standing Order 2020-02, extending all filing deadlines set
to fall between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020 by 42 days. On
April 10, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order
2020-07, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March
16, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by 84 days.

On May 22, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order
2020-11, which affirmed the prior Order's 84-day extension but did
not extend deadlines further. Pursuant to Standing Order 2020-07,
plaintiffs' filed their omnibus opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on July 17, 2020.

Defendants filed replies on August 13, 2020. On September 16, 2020,
the court granted in part and denied in part defendants motion
without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs' allegations against
certain defendant corporate families, including the Company, were
deficient.

On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint. Defendants must answer or move to dismiss the
second amended complaint by December 18, 2020. Briefing on motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint will be complete by
February 25, 2021.

No discovery has taken place to date.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.

SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 continues
to defend the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims.

The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the
conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct
purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser
complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of
end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated
proceeding captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional
poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats, Inc. On
February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint.

On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28,
2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.
Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats, Inc.

On August 6, 2020, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The Court granted the
end-user consumer plaintiffs' motion on September 22, 2020 and
deemed the version of the complaint filed on August 7, 2020
operative on October 19, 2020.

On October 23, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fifth amended complaint and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their seventh amended
complaint.

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.

SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in CA Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the consumer class action suit in California.

On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs (Daniel Lentz, Pam La
Fosse, and Marybeth Norman) filed, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class
action against the Company on behalf of a putative class of all
individuals and businesses throughout the United States who
purchased one or more of the Company's chicken products in the
prior four years.

The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class
members purchased the Company's chicken products based on
misleading representations in the Company's advertising.

Specifically, the plaintiffs, in this case, allege that the
Company's advertising (including, but not limited to, on its
website, television commercials, radio advertisements, social
media, print magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers
into believing that (i) the Company's chickens were not given
antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised
in a "natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use
of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to
the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the
Company's chicken products do not contain antibiotic or
pharmaceutical residues. Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Company
"routinely" feeds antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to its chickens,
(ii) the Company raises its chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor
conditions amounting to "intensive confinement" and without natural
light (iii) there is "extensive" reliable evidence that the use of
antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chickens have been found to
contain antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue.

The original Complaint asserted five causes of action under
California and North Carolina law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive
relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply
with consumer protection laws nationwide.

The plaintiffs also sought monetary damages, as well as fees and
costs. On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part, denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend
the Complaint.

On March 23, 2020, two of the three original plaintiffs (Pam La
Fosse and Marybeth Norman) filed a First Amended Complaint in which
they were joined by five additional named plaintiffs purporting to
assert claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers
and businesses who purchased the Company's chicken products in the
prior four years.

The core allegations and theories set forth in the First Amended
Complaint are the same as in the original complaint. The First
Amended Complaint asserted one cause of action under federal law
and sixteen causes of action under the laws of various states.

The plaintiffs again sought injunctive relief directing the Company
to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection
laws nationwide, as well as monetary damages, fees and costs. On
May 6, 2020, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint, which the Court granted on July 2, 2020
with leave to amend.

On July 23, 2020, plaintiffs Pam La Fosse and Sharon Manier filed a
Second Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative class of consumers
who purchased the Company's chicken in California in the prior four
years.

Like the earlier iterations of the complaint, the Second Amended
Complaint alleges that the remaining plaintiffs and other class
members purchased the Company's chicken products based on
misleading representations in the Company's advertising, including
for the reasons set forth in their prior complaints.

The plaintiffs again seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, fees
and costs. On August 6, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint in part, requesting dismissal of
plaintiffs' new implied warranty of merchantability claim. On
August 20, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to withdraw their
new implied warranty claim. Discovery commenced in October 2020.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.

SARGENTO FOODS: Phan Sues Over Mislabeled Dairy Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
QUYNH PHAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SARGENTO FOODS INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-09251 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21,
2020) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages
against the Defendant regarding the deceptive labeling, marketing,
and sale of its dairy cheese products with the claim "No
Antibiotics."

Contrary to representations on the products' labeling and
advertising, consumers, including the Plaintiff, received products
that are made with milk from cows allegedly raised with antibiotics
and products that themselves sometimes still contained those
antibiotics.

Sargento Foods Inc. produces, packs, and markets cheese products
offering mozzarella, cheddar, parmesan, provolone, jarlsberg,
ricotta, and monterey jack cheese. Sargento Foods operates in the
State of Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jaimie Mak, Esq.
          Kim Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW AND POLICY
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (718) 705-4579
          Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
          E-mail: jmak@richmanlawgroup.com
                  krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

SCRANTON SEWER: Gets Closer to Dissolving After Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
thetimes-tribune.com reports that four years after selling the
Scranton sewer system, the skeleton Scranton Sewer Authority
continues to operate in 2021 because it still has some unfinished
matters to complete, officials said.

When the authority will end remains unknown, but resolving
outstanding items brings the agency closer to finally dissolving.

The SSA closed the $195 million sale of the Scranton/Dunmore sewer
system to Pennsylvania American Water on Dec. 29, 2016.

In developing the sale, the SSA discovered that about 600 easements
inexplicably were never secured many decades earlier. The authority
offered affected homeowners a choice of $100 per easement or facing
condemnations. Some residents who had no idea sewer lines ran under
their properties saw $100 as a pittance for properties they now
viewed as greatly devalued. They filed the class-action lawsuit in
early November 2016.

The class-action suit remained the authority's biggest outstanding
issue, and resolving it consumed much of the past four years.

The suit finally ended last month, when Lackawanna County Senior
Judge Robert Mazzoni on Dec. 11 approved a $7 million settlement
between the authority and most of the 600 affected property
owners.

About three dozen property owners opted out of the settlement, and
the authority now has to negotiate with, and secure easements from,
those owners, SSA solicitor Jason Shrive said.

"We have opt-outs that we have to work through, so we're going to
be dealing with that," Shrive said during a SSA special meeting on
Dec. 18.

Executing facets of the settlement also remains underway.

"We continue to work with plaintiffs' attorneys and water company
counsel to finalize all of the provisions of the settlement,"
Shrive said. "We still have to work through the finalization of the
settlement for the class members."

To that end, the SSA held the special meeting to take various
actions following court approval of the settlement. Actions
included authorizing the disbursement of funds, transfer of money,
payments of bills and indemnity expenses, and resolving indemnity
legal language.

SSA Chairman Michael Parker, member Kevin Whelan of Scranton and
member Beth McDonald Zangardi of Dunmore approved several motions
related to carrying out the settlement.

The board also approved a motion to adopt an audit of the 2019
fiscal year.

Meanwhile, the authority has some other pending litigations to
resolve, and also continues to work with the water company on
various sewer lien issues, Shrive said.  [GN]


SOCIAL RESTAURANT: Connery-Thomas Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CONNERY-THOMAS; EWA PINKOWSKA; KRISTINA HUDSON; LEAH
MEBRAHTU; and MICHELE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOCIAL RESTAURANT GROUP,
LLC t/a PROVISION NO. 14, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03851
(D.D.C., Dec. 30, 2020) alleges that the Defendant deprived the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees of earned minimum wages
throughout their employment by unlawfully availing themselves of a
tip credit and paying tipped employees subminimum wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bartenders.

Social Restaurant Group, LLC t/a Provision No. 14 owns and operates
as a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl. NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 744-1407
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

               -and-

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

               -and-

          Frank Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          E-mail: fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com


SPEEDY CASH: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Delisle Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Speedy Cash filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY,
individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02042-GPC-RBB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Speedy Cash
offers loans through its physical stores, as well as through online
loan portals. Plaintiffs Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty
(Plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a putative
class action against Defendant Speedy Cash on behalf of themselves
and all others similar situated. The Plaintiffs assert claims under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Speedy Cash seeks a review of the court's order denying motion to
compel arbitration and stay proceedings upon remand.

The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Delisle, et al v. Speedy
Cash, Case No. 20-56356, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 21, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Speedy Cash Mediation Questionnaire was due on
December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 20, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 19, 2021;

   -- Appellant Speedy Cash opening brief is due on March 31,
2021;

   -- Appellees Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty answering brief
is due on April 30, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
          BLC LAW CENTER, APC
          1230 Columbia St., Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 894-8831  
          E-mail: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com    

Defendant-Appellant SPEEDY CASH is represented by:

          Wynter L. Deagle, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 509-6073
          E-mail: wynter.deagle@troutman.com

SPLUNK INC: Facing Putative Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Splunk 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 company is facing a
putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company,
its CEO and its CFO.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's financial guidance.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October
21, 2020 to December 2, 2020.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Splunk Inc. provides innovative software solutions that ingest data
from different sources including systems, devices and interactions,
and turn that data into meaningful business insights across the
organization. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


SPLUNK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021

Learn more about your recoverable losses in SPLK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11865&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Splunk Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers in the
third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until February 2, 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 SPLK 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]


STOCKX INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Data Security Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re StockX Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
Case No. 19-12441 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted StockX's motion to dismiss and compel
arbitration.

Eight individuals bring the putative class action against StockX
seeking to represent a nationwide class and several subclasses of
individuals who allegedly have been harmed by StockX's failure to
protect their confidential and personal information from a data
breach.

StockX is an e-commerce platform where users can purchase and sell
luxury goods, fashion clothing, rare sneakers, and accessories.
The eight named Plaintiffs are registered users of StockX: (1)
Kansas resident I.C., a minor by and through his natural parent,
Nasim Chaudhri; (2) New Jersey resident M.S., a minor by and
through his natural parent, Shuli Shakarchi; (3) Kansas resident
Adam Foote; (4) New York resident Anthony Giampetro; (5) Georgia
resident Kwadwo Kissi; (6) New York resident Richard Harrington;
(7) Florida resident Johnny Sacasas; and (8) California resident
Chad Bolling.

To create a StockX account, each Plaintiff had to complete the
registration process, which involved manually and affirmatively
checking a box indicating that he agreed to the then-current
version of the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.  All the
Plaintiffs created their StockX account in 2016 or later.  Since
Nov. 10, 2015, StockX has revised its Terms twice--on Oct. 17, 2017
and Oct. 9, 2018.

Because all the eight Plaintiffs agreed to the Current Terms, they
are the relevant version of the Terms governing the dispute.
StockX's Current Terms--like earlier versions of its Terms--contain
a mandatory arbitration provision which provides that any and all
disputes or claims that arise between StockX users and StockX must
be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration.
Unlike earlier versions of StockX's Terms, the Current Terms also
contain a delegation provision that delegates the issue of
arbitrability to the arbitrator.

The action arises from a data breach to StockX's system which
occurred sometime in May 2019.  The Plaintiffs filed the action and
three other similar actions in 2019 and early 2020.  In March 2020,
the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating the cases.  The
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in May
2020.

The Plaintiffs say StockX sent an email to its users on Aug.t 1,
2019 requiring a password reset because it had completed "system
updates."  They allege that in reality, StockX suffered a data
breach with more than 6.8 million user accounts stolen by a cyber
thief, who listed the data for sale on the "Dark Web," where the
data was then sold multiple times and later re-listed on other
underground hacker forums.  They allege that some Plaintiffs began
to suffer identity theft and other fraudulent activities shortly
after the breach.

The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of a nationwide class
and several subclasses of individuals who allegedly have been
harmed by StockX's failure to protect their confidential and
personal information and by StockX's deceptive statements relating
to the data breach.

StockX moves to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint.

Judge Roberts holds that there is "clear and unmistakable" evidence
that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.  She finds that
the Plaintiffs' infancy defense is a question of arbitrability
reserved for the arbitrator.  StockX has also demonstrated that the
matter should be referred to arbitration, and the Plaintiffs fail
to show that StockX's motion to compel arbitration should not be
granted.

For these reason, StockX's motion to dismiss is granted in part and
moot in part.  The Judge granted StockX's motion to compel
arbitration; its other arguments for dismissal are moot.  The
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycuv3do7 from Leagle.com.


STRATEGIC SECURITY: Hinojosa Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LAURO HINOJOSA, and JACQUELINE FUENTES, individually, and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STRATEGIC
SECURITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00315 (W.D. Tex.,
December 23, 2020) bring this collective action complaint against
the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay scheme that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as security
guards, claim that the Defendant did not include the health and
welfare premium payments when calculating its security guards'
regular rate of pay. As a result, they were not accurately paid by
the Defendant for their overtime compensation at the applicable
overtime rate in accordance with the law.

The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime compensation and an equal
amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court deems just
and proper.

Strategic Security Corporation provides security services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Benoit, Esq.
          TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          1331 Texas Ave.
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Tel: (915) 585-5118
          Fax: (956) 544-3789
          E-mail: cbenoit@trla.org

                - and –

          Nicole Bucheri, Esq.
          TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.
          1206 E. Van Buren
          Brownsville, TX 78520
          Tel: (956) 982-5540
          Fax: (956) 541-1410
          E-mail: nbucheri@trla.org


STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING: Misclassifies Workers, Farias et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR FARIAS, DAVID DE JESUS, OSMELY PEROZO-FERREIRA, and ANTONIO
LUNA, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00076-NKM (W.D. Va.,
December 22, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage
Payment Law, and the Virginia Misclassification Law.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as construction
workers, claim that although they were non-exempt from overtime
because they performed work for the Defendant within the usual
course of the Defendant's business, and were not engaged in work
that is customarily an independently established trade, the
Defendant required them and other similarly situated construction
workers to sign a document agreeing to be treated as independent
contractors. Despite they frequently work more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate required by law.

Moreover, the Defendant violated Virginia laws for illegally
deducting the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated construction
workers' wages that were not for payroll, wage, or withholding
taxes, and required them to sign a document forfeiting their
wages.

Strickland Waterproofing Company offers waterproofing services on
construction projects in Virginia and other states. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and –

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


SUBARU CORP: Warranty Claims in Cracked Windshield Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
torquenews.com reports that new information in the Subaru defective
windshield lawsuit covers the 2017-2020 Subaru Forester, Outback,
Crosstrek, Impreza, Legacy, and 2019-2020 Subaru Ascent models. In
November, Torque News reported the defective windshield
class-action lawsuit against Subaru of America included 2.5 million
vehicles in the U.S. covering the Subaru models listed above.

According to records obtained from Justia US Law, a court ruling
has also granted in part and denied in part Subaru of America's
motion to dismiss. Christine Powell, represented by Attorneys
Carlson Lynch, LeVan Law Group, Moon Law APC, and Freed Kanner
London & Millen, contends the Subaru models have "defective and
dangerous" windshields that are prone to "cracking, chipping and
otherwise breaking."

Torque News reported in February; the lawsuit added 15 new
plaintiffs to the case. In March, Subaru asked the Court to dismiss
the case stating the plaintiffs have never owned the model years
they say have the same defective windshields.

In the new ruling, Judge Noel Hillman will not dismiss the
defective windshield lawsuit against Subaru, and the Camden, N.J.
automaker's motion for a more definitive statement is denied. But
the Court did dismiss some claims against Subaru. The Judge
dismissed the plaintiff's breach of express warranty and implied
warranty claims.

Five breaches of express warranty claims are dismissed because
plaintiffs didn't bring their vehicles to Subaru for windshield
repairs. Subaru of America says the new car limited warranty
"requires the vehicle must be presented to an authorized Subaru
retailer for warranty repairs."

Also, the N.J. judge dismissed implied warranty claims made by two
plaintiffs because the owners weren't in "strict vertical privity"
with Subaru.

According to the Judge, all Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims are
dismissed because jurisdictional requirements demand 100 named
plaintiffs be listed on a class action. The number of named
plaintiffs on the Subaru class action is far below 100. The Judge
also dismissed a claim under the Song-Beverly Act from one
plaintiff.

What should owners do if they have a cracked windshield for no
apparent reason? If you own a 2017-2020 Subaru Forester, Outback,
Crosstrek, Impreza, Legacy, or 2019-2020 Subaru Ascent model, you
can file a complaint with the NHTSA or call 1-888-327-4236. Stay
tuned to Torque News for more Subaru defective windshield lawsuit
updates. [GN]



SWEET COFFEE: Faces Salamanca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA CAROLINA SALAMANCA, WILFREDO GUTIERREZ, and LUIS GUADARRAMA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SWEET COFFEE BAKERY, INC., PARISCIEN BAKERY, CORP., PARISCIEN
BAKERY #2, CORP., and ROMIRO MOSQUERA, JONY MOSQUERA, and MICHELLE
MOSQUERA, as individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-06223 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and Class members required minimum and overtime wages,
failing to provide spread of hours pay, failing to provide a
written notice and recordkeeping, and failing to provide wage
statements.

Plaintiff Salamanca was employed by the Defendants to work as a
counter person at Defendant Sweet Coffee Bakery, Inc. located at
297 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, from in or around January
2015 until in or around July 2020.

Plaintiff Gutierrez was employed by the Defendants to work as a
cook and a baker from in or around December 2015 until in or around
July 2020.

Plaintiff Guadarrama was employed by the Defendants to work as a
waiter, cleaner, and cook from in or around August 2014 until in or
around February 2020.

Sweet Coffee Bakery, Inc., Pariscien Bakery, Corp. and Pariscien
Bakery #2, Corp. are bakery companies in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Junked
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, 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 for class
certification filed in Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, has been
denied.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws.

The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against the company and dismissed the
complaint.

Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause
of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the
plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for
work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's
claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice.

In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the
California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion overturning the trial court's decision, holding
that the plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.

In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined
to review the Court of Appeal's decision.

Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties
have been engaged in discovery.

In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In July 2020, the company filed its opposition to
the motion for class certification. In September 2020, the
plaintiff filed her reply brief in support of the motion for class
certification.

In October 2020, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, 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 parties in Juan
Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed
to continue their settlement.

Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April
2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against the company seeking
penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and
hour laws.

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant,
BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at
the Company.

In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed.
The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
in March 2020.

Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have
agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance
of the mediator.

The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between
co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify
Tilly's for all of Tilly's losses and expenses incurred in
connection with this matter.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so. We believe that a loss is currently not probable
or estimable under Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC 450,
"Contingencies," and no accrual has been made with regard to the
verdict."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

TOTAL TANK: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Barr Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL TANK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01460 (W.D. Tex., December 23, 2020) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operator from
approximately mid-201 through October 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly classified him
and other similarly situated oilfield workers as exempt from the
overtime requirements. Although they regularly worked in excess of
40 hours each week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime for all
hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Total Tank Services, LLC is an oilfield company that provides
services throughout the U.S., including Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Moore Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07666 (N.D. Ill., December 22, 2020) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed nine calls on the
Plaintiff's residential phone line number (630) XXX-1188, which has
been continuously registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
for more than 10 years, in an attempt to sell him newspaper
delivery service by using multiple spoofed caller IDS. The
Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his prior express consent
to be contacted by the Defendant, and he sent a certified mail
letter to the Defendant's CEO Terry Jimenez on October 12, 2020.
However, the Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's letter and allegedly
refused to respond or engage in such discussions with the
Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons suffered damages and harmed by
being harassed and their privacy has been invaded, the suit says.

Tribune Publishing Company is a publicly-traded media company that
publishes numerous newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis St., Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Tel: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com


TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras" or the "Company")
f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. ("Netfin") (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW)
securities between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Triterras 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/triterras-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.

Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform
that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from
lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and
Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd., which closed on November 11, 2020.

Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium.

On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to
close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to
close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied
on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the
Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial
liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going
concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer
users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 19,
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]


TRITERRAS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 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 Triterras,
Inc. ("Triterras" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TRIT) securities
during the period from August 20, 2020 through December 16, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 19, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
The Company operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance
platform that connects commodity traders to trade and source
capital from lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger
of Netfin and Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd. ("Triterras Fintech"),
which closed on November 11, 2020 (the "Merger").

Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium. On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated
that Rhodium was seeking a moratorium to shield itself from
creditor actions while it planned a restructuring of its debts and
continue its business as a going concern.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or
approximately 31%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17,
2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's warrant
price fell $1.09, or approximately 35%, to close at $2.01 per
warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) the extent to which Company's
revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to
refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced
significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to
continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was
likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras 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 the 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: https://www.kmllp.com/. [GN]

TWIN RIVER: Ruotolo Sues Over Casino Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER E. RUOTOLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TWIN RIVER WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. and UTGR,
INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO HOTEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-WES-PAS
(D.R.I., Dec. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants failure to pay
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, the mandated
federal and/or state minimum wage rate for all hours worked and
overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island
Minimum Wage Act and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act.

From approximately August 2015 through the present, Plaintiff has
been employed by the Defendants at their casino property located in
Lincoln, Rhode Island. During her employment, Plaintiff has worked
as a payroll clerk/scheduler and table games dealer (both hourly,
non-exempt positions).

TRWH is a casino entertainment company with principal place of
business located in Rhode Island.

UTGR's line of business includes operating public hotels and
motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          V. Edward Formisano, Esq.
          FORMISANO AND COMPANY, P.C.
          100 Midway Place, Suite
          Cranston, RI 02920
          Telephone: (401) 400-4402
          Facsimile: (401) 944-9695
          E-mail: edf@formisanoandcompany.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com  

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
           A Professional Corporation
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mceclellandlawfirm.com

UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, 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 Court granted
final approval of the settlement in North Country Store v. United
Natural Foods, Inc., and this matter is now closed.

In November 2018, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
Rhode Island state court, which the Company removed to U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., the plaintiff
asserts that the Company made false representations about the
nature of fuel surcharges charged to customers and asserts claims
for alleged violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing arising out of the Company's fuel
surcharge practices.

On March 5, 2019, the Company answered the complaint denying the
allegations. At a court-ordered mediation on October 15, 2019, the
Company reached an agreement, which is immaterial in amount, to
avoid costs and uncertainty of litigation.

On August 10, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement, and this matter is now closed.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.

UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Sues Over Breach of Contractual Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
RISHI BHASIN, ANNE JAMES, NELSON OTERO, FIRST PLUS FUNDING, INC.,
FIRST ALLIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and RELIANCE MORTGAGE
SERVICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. UNITED SHORE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC (d/b/a UNITED WHOLESALE
MORTGAGE, "UWM"), Case No. 2:20-cv-13278-LJM-RSW (E.D. Mich., Dec.
11, 2020) is a class action brought by Plaintiffs who are
contractually entitled to commissions or charged back commissions
for bringing Defendant UWM customers who acquired mortgages after
March 18, 2019 but before September 19, 2019 and had not paid off
their loans within 180 days of funding.

The complaint alleges that UWM breached its contractual duties owed
to Plaintiffs by withholding commissions or charged back
commissions on the said loans. The Defendant similarly breached its
Wholesale Lending Agreement by amending its "Early Payoffs"
provision without proper notice and to retroactively apply to loans
that had been closed and funded prior to the amendment.

United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC provides mortgage lending services.
The Company offers online financing services and mortgage loans to
home purchasers. United Wholesale Mortgage serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2126
          E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Scott Glovsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY
          343 Harvard Avenue
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (626) 243-5598

UNITED STATES: Peltier Alleges Pembina Judgment Fund Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Ann Wilkie Peltier, Chrystel Aurora Cornelius, Delvin Cree,
Carol Ann Davis, Andrea Laverdure, Roberta Morin Lord, Coreena Joy
Patnaude, Barbara Ann Marie Poitra, Larry Joseph Morsette, Jr.,
William Dallas Wade Sun Child, John Wayne Gilbert, Carol Sue Doney
Hofeldt, Leona Kienenberger, Larry James Salois, Dawn Louise Roath,
Eunice Mae Bellanger, Wilfred Vernon Dentz, Dorothy Marilyn Gay,
Frank Stephen Lhotka, Bernadette Anne Spahr, Regina Ruth Howard,
Claire Mae Roath, Charlene Big Knife, Twila Marie Jerome, Toby Lee
Lamere, Dale Roger Pesch, Gladys J. Torkelson, Deanna M. Trottier
Wirtzberger, Gail Eagleman, Gaile Lynn Torres, Chane Weymer Salois,
Maryjo Elizabeth Rust, Lavonne Marie Brown, Shane Michael Brien,
Tacey Lynn Foster, Richard Edward Lawson, Peggy Ann Pena, Daniel
Boyd Williams, Mikealinda Marae Grant, Annette Marie Charette,
Robert S. Decoteau, Lola Greatwalker, Andrew L. Laverdure, Tammy
Jean Wilkie Poitra, Lee William Wilkie, Kenneth Zane Blatt St.
Marks, Josephine Oats Corcoran, Yvonne Marie Hill, Kathleen Ann
Franklin, Deborah Lea Ronneng, Amelia Evette Lafriniere Roy, Joyce
Elaine Demarre Stewart, Aaron Vasecka, Andrew Leslie Vasecka, Devi
Cole, Peter Fredrick Doney, Debra Josephine Newgard, Marie Louise
Nielsen, James Melvin Weigand, Georgi Ann Mitchell, Tammie May
Simmons, Tina Marie Taylor, Jeremy John Lee Rindahl, Belinda May
Harvill, Edward Timothy Ramsted and, Kathleen Butcher, for and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated V. David
Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of
the Treasury and the United States of America, Case No.
1:20-cv-03775 (D.D.C., Dec. 21, 2020) is an action to redress
breaches of trust by Defendants.

The complaint is brought by the Plaintiffs with respect to
Defendants' accounting and management of two Judgment Awards of the
Indian Claims Commission (ICC), for claims in ICC Docket Numbers
18-A, 113, 191, and 221 brought by the Pembina Band of Chippewa
Indians seeking additional compensation for certain lands that the
Pembina Band ceded to the United States.

The first Judgment Award was in 1964 and the second was in 1980.
The 1964 Award and the 1980 Award are known commonly and
collectively as the "Pembina Judgment Fund" (PJF).

According to the complaint, Defendants have not complied with their
specific statutory fiduciary obligations to account for properly
and invest prudently the PJF on behalf of PJF beneficiaries.
Defendants have failed to account for PJF funds and they have
mismanaged PJF funds by failing to invest the funds, failing to
invest the funds timely, under-investing the funds, imprudently
investing the funds, and otherwise poorly investing or mismanaging
the funds.

The Defendants are the trustee for the PJF. Plaintiffs belong to
more than 38,000 individuals, as determined by Interior, to be
beneficiaries of the PJF. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melody L. McCoy, Esq.
          Kim Jerome Gottschalk, Esq.
          NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
          1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (720) 647-9691
                     (720) 647-9252
          Facsimile: (303) 443-7776
          E-mail: mmccoy@narf.org

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JESSIE J. ROSS, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICE, LLC, d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL and d/b/a ALLIEDUNIVERSAL
SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02649-JAR-TJJ
(D. Kan., December 22, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated against the Defendant for
its alleged failure to properly pay overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked with the Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly-paid security shift supervisor from on or about June 20,
2019 until he was terminated on or about December 29, 2019 for
complaining about his incorrect wage amount.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he routinely worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant failed to pay him the
proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay because the Defendant failed to pay him his
agreed-upon wage of $14.25 for all his hours worked. The Defendant
retaliated against the Plaintiff because of his wage complaints by
suspending him on or about December 7, 2019, and he was then
terminated for the same reason.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has breached its
employment agreement with the Plaintiff by failing and refusing to
properly pay his agreed rate of pay.

Universal Protection Service, LLC provide security solution
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg N. Tourigny, Esq.
          THE TOURIGNY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Tel: (816) 945-2861
          E-mail: greg@tourignylaw.com

                - and –

          Sophie Woodworth, Esq.
          HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
          4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Tel: (816) 283-8739
          E-mail: swoodworth@hslawllc.com


USHEALTH ADVISORS: Hirsch Ruling in TCPA Suit to Fifth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled AARON HIRSCH, ET AL., v. USHEALTH ADVISORS,
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:18-CV-245, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Mark T. Pittman entered an order denying the Motion for Class
Certification, on behalf of:

   "all natural persons in the United States who, from March 29,
   2014 to the date of the Court's Order granting class
   certification: (a) received more than one telephone
   solicitation call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf
   of USHealth more than 31 days after registering the landline,  
   wireless, cell or mobile telephone number on which they
   received those calls with the National Do-Not-Call Registry,
   or (b) received one or more calls after registering the
   landline, wireless, cell, or mobile telephone number on which
   they received the calls with USHealth's Internal Do-Not-Call
   list."

The Court held that, because Hirsch failed to show common questions
predominate over questions only affecting individual members, he
failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). No
amount of additional discovery or further rounds of lengthy motions
would change this outcome.

Mr. Hirsch brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), which prohibits certain telephone solicitations to
residential phones after the number is listed on either a national
or internal do-not-call list.

Hirsch alleges the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs USHealth
Advisors, LLC and USHealth Group, Inc. and their agents, after he
listed his number on both do-not-call lists, solicited health
insurance to his cell phone. The Defendants deny this allegation
and counterclaim that Hirsch fraudulently represented his interest
in the Defendants' product's repeatedly inveigling the Defendants'
agents to call him -- solely to bring this TCPA claim.

Hirsch seeks a review of the said court's order, denying the motion
for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors,
Case No. 20-90050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, Dec. 21, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
response/opposition is due on December 31, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Aaron Hirsch, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jamshyd Michael Zadeh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JIM ZADEH, P.C.
          1555 Rio Grande Avenue
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 335-5100

Defendants-Respondents USHealth Advisors, L.L.C. and USHealth
Group, Incorporated are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.
          200 E. Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0000
          Telephone: (954) 761-2597
          E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com  

               - and -

          Daniel Lay Bates, Esq.
          DECKER JONES, P.C.
          801 Cherry Street
          Burnett Plaza Unit 46
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 336-2400
          E-mail: dbates@deckerjones.com

VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems 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 motion for leave
to appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary,
Verint Systems Limited, is pending.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited (VSL) (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse
Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09).

Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical
public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where
the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to
consolidate and amend their complaints against the three
defendants: VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the Comverse Share Distribution). In the period
leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or
transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets
(other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and in its
then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to
unaffiliated third parties.

As a result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction (the CTI Merger). As a result of
the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing
legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement
entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution,
the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification
from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the company may
suffer in its capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing
legal actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the
merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli
Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case
to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause
of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert
opinions.

Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018
and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the
District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion
to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended
pleadings by the parties.

CTI submitted a motion to appeal the District Court's decision to
the Supreme Court, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings in
the District Court pending the resolution of the appeal. On July 6,
2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion for a stay.

On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits
of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for
further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere's Appeal From Voluntary Dismissal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAMIAN LANGERE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VERIZON WIRELESS
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-55747 (9th Cir.),
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismisses Langere's
appeal from his own voluntary dismissal.

Mr. Langere is a Verizon Wireless customer who purchased the
company's extended warranty program for his cellphone.  He was
unhappy to find out that the Verizon warranty offers similar
protections to those already provided by his cellphone's
manufacturer for the first year.  He, therefore, brought the
putative class action against Verizon for the violation of federal
and state consumer-protection statutes.

Verizon moved to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings
under 9 U.S.C. Section 4.  The district court obliged and granted
the motion to compel arbitration.  It also denied Langere's later
motion for reconsideration.

Ordinarily, a plaintiff in this position has two choices to appeal:
arbitrate the claims to completion and then appeal as of right, see
9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(3), (b)(1)-(3), or hope that the courts
approve an interlocutory appeal.  But Langere tried something
different.  Finding himself in a "procedural bind," Langere
voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, as he was entitled
to under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), without leave
from the district court.  He did so because arbitration was not
"economically feasible," and he felt that appealing the arbitration
order was his only viable option.  He assured the district court
that he was not refusing to prosecute his claims, but only refusing
to do so in a way that he thought would be futile and
uneconomical.

Langere then appealed his own voluntary dismissal, and the district
court's orders, to the Court.  Verizon moved to dismiss for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.  A motions panel of the Court denied that
motion without prejudice to renew during the merits consideration
of the case.  Verizon so renewed its concern about appellate
jurisdiction before the Court.  The Court now grants that motion.

In Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010), the
Circuit Court previously answered in the affirmative the question
on whether a plaintiff can avoid arbitration and manufacture
appellate jurisdiction simply by voluntarily dismissing his claims
with prejudice after being compelled to arbitrate by court order.
But a later decision of the Supreme Court in Microsoft Corp. v.
Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) has forced it to reconsider.

After finding that its previous approach is clearly irreconcilable
with that it outlined, the Ninth Circuit changes its answer.  It
opines that Omstead has been effectively overruled by the Supreme
Court's decision in Microsoft.  A plaintiff does not create
appellate jurisdiction by voluntarily dismissing his claims with
prejudice after being forced to arbitrate them.

The Court explains that class certification and compelling
arbitration are not the same.  But the ultimate, fundamental
question is whether a plaintiff may bypass a regime for
discretionary appellate review through a voluntary dismissal.
Because the Supreme Court has clearly rejected that tactic, the
Court must do so as well.  At its core, the Supreme Court's
reasoning in Microsoft is clearly irreconcilable with the Court's
approach in Omstead.

First and foremost, Langere's voluntary-dismissal tactic undermines
the discretionary appellate-review scheme designed by Congress in
the FAA.  Second, Langere's voluntary-dismissal tactic invites
protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals.  Third, like in
Microsoft, the dismissal tactic is one-sided: only the Plaintiffs,
never the Defendants, may force the immediate appeal of an order
compelling arbitration.

After careful consideration of its own precedent, and that of the
Supreme Court, the Circuit Court concludes that the voluntary
dismissal of claims following an order compelling arbitration does
not create appellate jurisdiction.  It, therefore, dismisses the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yanpgtxt from Leagle.com.

Jordan S. Esensten -- jesensten@esenstenlaw.com -- (argued) and
Robert L. Esensten -- resensten@wccelaw.com -- Esensten Law, in Los
Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- (argued) and
David W. Moon -- dmoon@stroock.com -- Stroock Stroock & Lavan LLP,
in Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.


VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VIACOM INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0948-JRS (Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R.
Slights, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion, Delaware's General
Corporation Law ("DGCL") is a prime example of codified law that
"elegantly and flexibly" enables those it regulates to fulfill
their vital and multi-faceted purposes.  As a "counterpoint" to the
DGCL's enabling and contractarian features, "the ex post judicial
review of the actions of corporate officers and directors, measured
by fiduciary principles" exists as a means to ensure that those
charged with the management of the corporation act with a loyal
purpose when exercising their broad powers over corporate property
and processes.

The ex post judicial review is presumptively deferential in
recognition of both the managerial primacy of the board of
directors, as provided for in the DGCL, and the prudence of
encouraging managerial "creativity and risk-taking."  Indeed, for
these reasons, as a general matter, the conduct of corporate
fiduciaries is given less judicial scrutiny than the conduct of
trust fiduciaries.  But courts of equity, where judicial review of
fiduciary conduct abides, have long been on qui vive for the
self-dealing fiduciary who steers the corporation into transactions
that enrich the fiduciary to the potential detriment of the
stockholders.  In these instances, the duty of loyalty is
rigorously enforced by requiring the fiduciaries to justify as
intrinsically fair any transaction in which they had a financial
interest.

Consistent with the nuance that infuses the common law, Delaware is
more suspicious when the fiduciary who is interested in a
transaction is a controlling stockholder.  Thus, the court is, and
should be, skeptical when a controlling stockholder seeks a
pleading stage dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims brought
on behalf of public stockholders who challenge the bona fides of a
transaction where the controller indisputably stands on both sides
of the transaction.

Indeed, when a controlling stockholder engages in self-dealing, she
should assume, if challenged, that the Court will perform its "ex
post review" function with vigor, and that it will generally allow
public stockholders who might challenge the self-dealing
transaction an opportunity to proceed beyond the pleadings to test
the fairness of the transaction.  The instant case, involving one
of the more visible, hotly contested instances of alleged
controlling stockholder self-dealing in recent memory, is no
exception.

A putative class of Viacom stockholders allege that the controlling
stockholders of both Viacom and CBS Corp., defined as the NAI
Parties, caused Viacom and CBS to merge and become the combined
entity now known as ViacomCBS, Inc.  According to the Plaintiffs,
the NAI Parties are controlled by Shari Redstone.  Ms. Redstone is
alleged to have exerted her control over other Viacom fiduciaries
in a manner that caused them to negotiate and approve the Merger
out of loyalty to her on terms detrimental to Viacom and its public
stockholders.

The Plaintiffs' complaint spins a tale of Ms. Redstone's
unrelenting drive to attain the status of "media magnate" that
would rival or surpass the legacy of her father, Sumner Redstone.
According to the Plaintiffs, in 2016, Ms. Redstone initiated a
campaign to consolidate the media empire her father had built.  Her
first step was to augment her control of the NAI Parties.  She then
attempted to leverage her control of the NAI Parties to cause the
entities they controlled, Viacom and CBS, to merge on three
separate occasions, in 2016, 2018, and then again (successfully) in
2019.  In 2016 and 2018, when her attempts to effect a Viacom/CBS
combination failed, she took steps to remove the obstacles and
tried again.

In 2018, Ms. Redstone convinced an allegedly compromised Viacom
transaction committee to push for a merger with CBS (for the second
time), but her insistence that Viacom CEO and alleged NAI loyalist,
Robert Bakish, be named to the board of the pro forma company
prompted CBS to reject the deal and stop talking.  Undeterred, Ms.
Redstone was back again in 2019, pushing the same conflicted Viacom
transaction committee to push the same transaction that CBS had
rejected the year before, but this time she insisted that CBS agree
that Bakish would not only have a seat on the board but also be
named CEO of the pro forma company.

CBS sensed that Ms. Redstone's fixation on installing her
compatriot Bakish as CEO of the combined company could be
exploited, and its special committee insisted that Viacom make a
commensurate "significant concession" on price in exchange for its
governance priorities.  The Viacom transaction committee did just
that, ultimately agreeing to accept approximately $1 billion less
in the Merger than it had bargained for just a year before.

The Plaintiffs bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against the
NAI Parties, Bakish and the members of Viacom's transaction
committee for their role in consummating the Merger.  Each
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.  In doing so, they
urge the Court to review the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty
claims under the deferential business judgment rule since the
Plaintiffs have alleged nothing more than that the NAI Parties
stood on both sides of the merger.  According to the Plaintiffs, a
controller's mere presence on both sides of a transaction is not
enough to trigger entire fairness review; they must also well plead
that the controller exploited its control position to the tangible
detriment of the minority stockholders.

Citing the seminal Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., the Plaintiffs maintain
that the Defendants' position plainly misstates Delaware law, which
has, for decades, recognized that, the requirement of fairness is
unflinching in its demand that where one stands on both sides of a
transaction, he has the burden of establishing its entire fairness,
sufficient to pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts.
According to them, the controller's presence on both sides of a
transaction is "inherently coercive" with respect to other
corporate decision makers, and entire fairness scrutiny, therefore,
is required to gauge whether the transaction replicated what would
have been secured for the corporation and its stockholders at
arms-length.  Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue their complaint
more than adequately pleads that the NAI Parties, and Ms. Redstone
in particular, secured value from the Viacom/CBS Merger that was
not shared with other Viacom stockholders.

The parties' fundamental disagreement over the supposedly settled
state of the law regarding whether the controller's "mere presence"
on both sides of a merger is enough to trigger entire fairness
review is interesting to be sure, but ultimately academic, says
Judge Slights.  After carefully reviewing the complaint, Judge
Slights is satisfied it adequately pleads a reasonably conceivable
basis to infer that the controller achieved a non-ratable benefit
from the Merger to the detriment of Viacom's public stockholders.
Thus, at this stage, and without prejudice to the Defendants' right
to argue otherwise on a more developed record, he is satisfied that
NAI's conduct with respect to the Merger should be reviewed for
entire fairness.

NAI could have agreed to the dual protections under Kahn v. M&F
Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) ("MFW"), to avoid entire
fairness review but explicitly directed the special committees of
both Viacom and CBS to proceed on the assumption that NAI would not
agree to allow the minority stockholders of either company to
decide whether to proceed with the Merger.  If implemented, the
dual protections provided to minority stockholders under the MFW
framework would have sufficiently neutralized the NAI Parties
coercive influence over the process.  Absent these protections, a
conflicted controller standing on both sides of a transaction
cannot avoid entire fairness review of that transaction. Here, the
complaint well pleads that the Merger was not entirely fair.  It
follows, then, that the motion to dismiss the claims against the
NAI Parties must be denied.

The Plaintiffs also assert claims against the members of Viacom's
transaction committee who negotiated the transaction on Viacom's
behalf and recommended its approval, alleging these fiduciaries not
only maintained relationships with Ms. Redstone that conceivably
compromised their independence, but also labored under a
"controlled mindset" that caused them to succumb to the will of the
controller.  In other words, they allege that the willingness of
the fiduciaries who served on Viacom's transaction committee to
allow Ms. Redstone to dominate their decision-making rendered them
servile tools in Ms. Redstone's relentless pursuit of a Viacom/CBS
combination to advance her interests.  Thus, notwithstanding the
Section 102(b)(7) provision in Viacom's charter, the Plaintiffs
maintain they have stated viable, non-exculpated claims against
each member of the Viacom transaction committee.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that their complaint states
non-exculpated breach of loyalty claims against the members of the
Viacom transaction committee.  The well-pled facts relating to the
controller's past predations, her direct involvement in Merger
negotiations and her relationships with the members of the Viacom
transaction committee are enough to allow pleading-stage inferences
that these fiduciaries did not act independently and in the best
interests of Viacom's minority stockholders when negotiating and
ultimately consummating the Merger.  Thus, notwithstanding the
exculpation clause in Viacom's charter, the motion to dismiss the
claims against these Defendants must also be denied.

The same cannot be said of the motion to dismiss brought by Bakish,
Judge Slights opines.  Regardless of the applicable standard of
review, the law requires that a plaintiff plead a factual basis to
support a claim of breach of fiduciary duty.  In other words, the
complaint must put the fiduciary on notice of what he is alleged to
have done wrong.  Given that not a single allegation in the
complaint alleges actionable wrongdoing by Bakish, the claim
against him, as set forth in Count III, must be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Slights denied the Motion to
Dismiss as to Counts I and II of the Complaint, asserting claims
for breach of fiduciary duty against the NAI Parties and the Viacom
Committee Defendants, respectively.  He granted the Motion as to
Count III, which purports to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against Bakish.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y728jxze from Leagle.com.

Gregory V. Varallo Esquire -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esquire -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Edward G.
Timlin, Esquire -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- Andrew E. Blumberg
Esquire, and Daniel E. Meyer Esquire, of Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff
California Public Employees' Retirement System.

Chad Johnson, Esquire -- ChadJ@rgrdlaw.com -- Noam Mandel Esquire
-- Noam@rgrdlaw.com -- and Desiree Cummings Esquire --
dcummings@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New
York, New York; Christopher H. Lyons Esquire, of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, in Nashville, Tennessee, Attorneys for
Additional Plaintiff Park Employees' and Retirement Board
Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago.

Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esquire -- mail@bottinilaw.com -- and Anne
B. Beste Esquire, of Bottini & Bottini, Inc., in La Jolla,
California, Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Louis M. Wilen.

Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire -- mfischer@potteranderson.com --
Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com --
Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire, J. Matthew Belger, Esquire,
Jacqueline A. Rogers Esquire, and Callan R. Jackson Esquire, of
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, and Victor
L. Hou, Esquire, Rahul Mukhi Esquire, and Mark E. McDonald Esquire,
of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, in New York City,
Attorneys for Defendants National Amusements, Inc., NAI
Entertainment Holdings LLC, and Shari E. Redstone.

Gregory P. Williams, Esquire -- williams@rlf.com -- Blake
Rohrbacher Esquire -- rohrbacher@rlf.com -- and Kevin M. Regan
Esquire, of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware
and Robert H. Baron, Esquire, Gary A. Bornstein Esquire, and Rory
A. Leraris Esquire, of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, in New York
City, Attorneys for Defendants Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale,
Ronald Nelson and Nicole Seligman.

Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire -- jabramczyk@mnat.com -- D. McKinley
Measley, Esquire -- mmeasley@mnat.com -- Alexandra M. Cumings
Esquire, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware and Stuart J. Baskin Esquire, and Randall Martin Esquire,
of Shearman & Sterling LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for
Defendant Robert M. Bakish.


VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Securities Suit Removed to District of Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JASON CRUMRINE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIVINT SOLAR,
INC.; DAVID BYWATER; and DANA RUSSELL, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05777, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on Dec. 30, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00919 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Daphne A. Oberg.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Vivint Solar Inc. provides renewable energy. The Company offers
designing, installing, and maintaining affordable solar solutions
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


WALMART INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Data Breach Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia de la Torre, Esq. -- lydia.delatorre@squirepb.com -- and
Raisa Dyadkina, Esq. -- raisa.dyadkina@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that The Lavarious Gardiner v. Walmart Inc. et al. case is
anything but typical.

As a re-cap, back in July 2020, plaintiff filed a class action
complaint against Walmart alleging that Walmart suffered a data
breach which they never disclosed. As evidence of the breach,
plaintiff presented claims that the personal information associated
with his Walmart account had been discovered on the dark web and
presented the results of security scans performed on Walmart's
website, which allegedly show certain vulnerabilities.

In other words, plaintiff filed suit on the suspicion that
Walmart's systems had been breached, which Walmart denies.

On December 12, Walmart filed a Motion to Dismiss all plaintiff's
claims, (which include, among others, a claim under the California
Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") and a claim under California Unfair
Competition Law ('UCL')) arguing that plaintiff failed to state
viable claims. In addition to the specific arguments discussed
below for the CCPA and UCL claims, the motion presents several
additional arguments, including the allegation that plaintiff
"cannot make the requisite showing of cognizable harm."

Specifically with respect to the alleged CCPA violation, Walmart
argues that plaintiff failed to allege when the breach occurred,
which makes it impossible to determine if the CCPA even applies.
The CCPA expressly provides that it is not operative until January
1, 2020, and it contains no express language establishing that it
applies retroactively.[1] Walmart's motion argues that the court
should follow the precedent set by Judge Koh in In re Yahoo! Inc.
Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., which reached the conclusion that
a claim under the recently amended California Customer Records Act
("CRA") had to be dismissed where the plaintiffs failed to allege
when the alleged violation occurred.[2]

The motion also urges the court to dismiss the UCL claim on the
grounds (among others) that a UCL claim cannot be based on alleged
violations of the CCPA. On its face, the CCPA states that "nothing
in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a
private right of action under any other law."[3] Furthermore,
during negotiations for the passage and the amendment of CCPA two
separate California Senate Judiciary Committee reports acknowledged
CCPA eliminates the possibility of a private right of action
outside the narrow claim related to data breaches.[4]

In sum, the resolution by the court of the motion to dismiss could
shed light on two interesting questions related to CCPA litigation:
(1) whether CCPA could be read to apply to data breaches that
occurred before its effective day but were subsequently discovered;
and (2) whether CCPA may allow for a private right of action
outside of the narrow provision on data breaches.

As always, CPW will be there to discuss additional developments in
this and other data privacy litigation cases.

Stay tuned.

[1] See, Cal. Civ.Code Section 1798.198(a).

[2] 2017 WL 3727318, at *38 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) ("Because the
CCAC does not allege when Defendants discovered the 2013 Breach,
the Court cannot determine which version of the CRA was in effect
at the time that Defendants allegedly violated the CRA . . .")

[3] See, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.150(c).

[4] See, Cal. Sen. Judiciary Committee Report on 2018 CA A.B. 375,
June 26, 2018, p. 22. (acknowledging before the passage of CCPA's
Section 1798.150(c) that CCPA "eliminates the ability of consumers
to bring claims for violations of the Act under statutes such as
the [UCL]") and Cal. Sen. Rules Committee Report on CA A.B. 1355,
September 12, 2019, p. 6. (stating that section 1798.150 is the
"only enforcement mechanism made available to consumers pursuant to
the CCPA . . ." ) [GN]


WEB TO DOOR: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MARK WILLIAMS, JORGE MEDINA and DERRIELL THOMAS, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WEB TO DOOR CORP., a
Nevada corporation; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., a Florida
corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-588382 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 11, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the laws due to
their failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide
accurate itemized statements, failure to provide wages when due,
and unfair business practices.

Plaintiff Mark Williams has been employed by the Defendants since
December 2019, as a non-exempt employee.

Plaintiff Jorge Medina was employed by the Defendants from April
2019 to March 2020, as a non-exempt employee.

Plaintiff Derriell Thomas has been employed by the Defendants since
2017, as a non-exempt employee.

Web to Door provides last mile delivery courier service, including
same-day delivery routes, business-to-business,
business-to-customer, and less than truckload delivery services in
California.

South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. is a staffing agency. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291

WORLD FINANCIAL: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CASF
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants World Financial Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Tricia Yeomans,
et al. v. World Financial Group Ins., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00792-EMC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.  

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied (i) the Defendants' motion to transfer the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
and (ii) the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against Defendants
World Financial Group Insurance Agency (a California corporation),
World Financial Group Inc. (a Florida corporation), and Does 1 to
100, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professional Code, and California Wage
Orders (and asserting a claim of unjust enrichment) based on the
Defendants' purported misclassification of the Plaintiffs as
independent contractors, as opposed to employees.

The Defendants represent themselves as a financial- and
insurance-products marketing company; they recruit individuals as
"Associates" and purport to give people the tools to build and
operate their own financial services business.  However, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants conduct their business by way
of a massive pyramid scheme, wherein recruiting new Associates is
one of the main factors involved in achieving promotions. Once
someone is an Associate, the Defendants pressure that person to
purchase the Defendants' financial and insurance products and to
sell financial and insurance products to the new Associates.

The Defendants seek a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco after
it denied their motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as WFGIA, et al v. USDC-CASF, Case
No. 20-73758, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY,
INC., a California corporation, and WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a
Georgia corporation, are represented by:

          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.  
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  marlene.moffitt@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com

Plaintiffs-Real Parties in Interest TRICIA YEOMANS, ISMAIL CHRAIBI,
ROBERT JENKINS, DOROTHY JENKINS, FATEMEH ABTAHI, ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
CAMERON BRADFORD are represented by:

          Joel Matthew Gordon, Esq.
          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          E-mail: jgordon@marlinsaltzman.com  
                  ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Christina Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (909) 908-3059
          E-mail: clucio@farnaeslaw.com

YRC INC: Alvarez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Felipe Alvarez filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled FELIPE ALVAREZ, et al. v. YRC,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01374-TJH-E, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from employment-related issues.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order
dated November 17, 2020, denying Alvarez's and Schroeder's motion
for partial summary judgment. Under the order, YRC's motion for
summary judgment be, and hereby is, granted as to all of Alvarez's
claims and as to Schroeder's claims for second meal break and third
rest break violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Felipe Alvarez, et al. v. YRC
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56350, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Felipe Alvarez Mediation Questionnaire was due on
December 28, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 15, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021;

   -- Appellant Felipe Alvarez opening brief is due on March 26,
2021;

   -- Appellees YRC Inc., YRC Worldwide Inc. and Yellow Roadway
Corporation answering brief is due on April 26, 2021; and

  -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FELIPE ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jordan Domingo Bello, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 653-0086
          E-mail: jbello@lelawfirm.com
                  jlavi@lelawfirm.com  

               - and -

          David M. Derubertis, Esq.
          THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
          4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 761-2322
          E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com   

               - and -

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@maralawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees YRC INC., DBA YRC Freight, YRC WORLDWIDE INC.,
and YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION are represented by:

          Lyn Agre, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-6140
          E-mail: lagre@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 615-6052
          E-mail: ebronchetti@mwe.com

               - and -

          Pankit Doshi, Esq.
          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          415 Mission Street, Suite 5600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (628) 218-3812
          E-mail: pdoshi@mwe.com
                  rjholland@mwe.com   

               - and -

          Alexandra Howard Hemenway, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3652
          E-mail: ahemenway@littler.com  

               - and -

          Daniel Saunders, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 288-7904   
          E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com

ZINUS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ZINUS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10829 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2,
2020) arises from the Defendant's failure 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 people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Zinus Inc. wholesales and distributes household furniture and
operates the said Website. The Company wholesales and distributes
bed frames, sofas, platform beds, mattresses, and other related
products. Zinus markets its products worldwide. [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

[*] Michigan AG's Office Negotiated Historic Settlements in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
13OnYourSide reports that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's
office has been busy the past 12 months, negotiating historic
settlements, filing significant lawsuits, investigating serious
threats and protecting consumers from an array of scams and
deceptive business practices.

As 2020 comes to a close, the wild election cycle very likely
remains fresh in the collective conscious, but other significant
events -- such as the lawsuit filed against major PFAS
manufacturers or the $80 million settlement reached in Doe et al v.
Michigan Department of Corrections -- also rank among milestone
events coming out of the Michigan Department of Attorney General in
2020.

"This year has been marked by a multitude of actions taken by my
office and on behalf of other state departments, and I am extremely
proud and grateful for the exemplary work performed by everyone at
the Michigan Department of Attorney General," Nessel said. "While
COVID-19 has presented logistical complications and new
difficulties in enforcing our laws, my staff has risen to meet
those challenges squarely in pursuit of justice on behalf of the
people of this state. I am encouraged by the accomplishments we
have achieved in 2020 and eagerly anticipate furthering those
efforts as we look forward to 2021."

A brief round-up of some notable events follows:

Important Investigations  

Wolverine Watchmen -- Cases remain pending in court for the eight
men charged in connection to an alleged domestic terrorism plot
that involved storming the Michigan Capitol building and kidnapping
elected officials, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Four of the
defendants are scheduled to appear in court in February, with three
more scheduled to appear in March. The eighth defendant -- Brian
Higgins -- is awaiting extradition in Wisconsin.  

The Base -- Charges were filed in late October against the
self-proclaimed leader of The Base -- a national white supremacist
group with violent ideologies -- and an associate of the gang,
following an investigation by Michigan State Police and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. A probable cause hearing for both
defendants in Washtenaw County 14A-3 District Court took place Dec.
17 and was adjourned until 9 a.m. Feb. 4.

Clergy Abuse -- The Department's investigation into clergy abuse
hit the two-year mark in October, with 11 men seeing charges in
that time span. The Attorney General's office continues to review
the 220 boxes of paper documents and more than 3.5 million digital
documents seized from the state's seven Catholic dioceses in 2018.
As of late September, the office's Clergy Abuse Investigative Team
had reviewed more than 2.24 million of the digital documents and
142 boxes of paper documents.

Public Integrity -- Multiple public officials were subjects of
investigations conducted by the Attorney General's office,
including Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith and Chief Assistant
Prosecutor Benjamin Liston. The office also reviewed cases
involving alleged misconduct by police officers in Saginaw,
Washtenaw and Jackson counties, along with a former Grand Traverse
County jail administrator and technicians who were contracted to
test and service breathalyzers used by law enforcement.

Important Settlements

Flint Civil Litigation -- The largest settlement in the State of
Michigan's history was submitted to the court for preliminary
approval after being announced in August. The State and other
defendants have agreed to contribute $641.2 million to settle the
litigation that was filed after the city of Flint switched its
public water supply to the Flint River in 2014. Judge Judith Levy
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan reviewed the agreement as part of a motion for preliminary
approval, and may issue a ruling on whether the settlement meets
certain legal standards in January.  

Doe et al v Michigan Department of Corrections -- An $80 million
settlement was announced in February for the class-action lawsuit
filed by 1,300 youthful prisoners. The juveniles alleged they were
victims of sexual assaults, and various other harms, while they
were housed in adult prisons under the custody of the MDOC after
being charged, convicted and sentenced as adults under Michigan
law.  

Hill v. Whitmer -- In conjunction with the Michigan Department of
Corrections, the Attorney General's office settled this class
action arising out of the resentencing of juveniles sentenced to
mandatory life-without-parole sentences (LWOP) in accordance with
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama. Under
Miller, offenders who were sentenced to LWOP were entitled to a
hearing designed to consider their youth at the time of the offense
along with other factors to determine if a LWOP was appropriate.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a LWOP would only be
appropriate in the most extreme cases. The Michigan Legislature
enacted a series of statutes that provided for specific minimum
terms if the trial court did not resentence the offender to a LWOP
and also prohibited the application of good time and disciplinary
credits. The Hill class challenged the statute prohibiting the
application of credits and also sought programming for those
offenders waiting for resentencing and to set a schedule for the
Miller hearings to be completed. On Nov. 6, the court approved a
settlement that provided for the Hill class members to be eligible
for programming, a timeline to notify the trial court that the
prosecutors were ready to proceed with the Miller hearings, and for
the Attorney General to provide assistance to the local prosecutors
in charge of the resentencing hearings.

Important Lawsuits

PFAS -- The Attorney General's office in January filed suit against
several major manufacturers of the "forever chemicals" PFAS. The
lawsuit seeks damages, past costs, and remediation for PFAS
contamination as a result of the chemicals' use in manufacturing.
The case survived multiple motions to dismiss, and in August the
Attorney General's office took legal action seeking damages, past
costs, and remediation for PFAS contamination from firefighting
foam known as AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam). All of these cases
remain pending in court.  

Opioids -- In late 2019, Attorney General Nessel filed suit against
Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.,
and Walgreen Co. for their roles in distributing massive quantities
of opioids in Michigan. In November 2020, the case survived an
attempt to dismiss by the defendants and the court ruled that the
AG's arguments based on violations of Michigan's Drug Dealer
Liability Act could proceed. That case remains in litigation in
Wayne County Circuit Court.

Enbridge Line 5 -- Nessel continued her lawsuit that was filed in
2019 against Enbridge in Ingham County Circuit Court that seeks the
permanent shutdown of the Straits Pipelines, based on the public
trust doctrine, the common law of public nuisance and the Michigan
Environmental Protection Act. In November, the Attorney General's
office also filed another lawsuit against Enbridge on behalf of
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources seeking to revoke and terminate the easement granted by
the State in 1953 that allows Enbridge to operate its dual
pipelines on the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac.

Antitrust -- In early December, Attorney General Nessel and 47
other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Facebook
alongside a separate action by the FTC for anticompetitive behavior
-- including the purchases of competitors like Instagram, to
protect its monopoly. Also in December, Attorney General Nessel
joined a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice alongside
California and Wisconsin against Google for anticompetitive
behavior-- including entering into exclusionary business agreements
to shut out competitors, to protect its monopoly.

CARES Act Litigation -- In July, Attorney General Nessel and
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra led a coalition in a
court action against U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her
attempt to divert more than 16 million dollars in COVID-19 relief
funding from public schools in Michigan. Judge James Donato -- of
the U.S. District Court Northern District of California -- on Nov.
9, approved a permanent injunction, formally closing the case on
DeVos's efforts to rewrite a section of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief
and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Following his order to grant the
permanent injunction, Judge Donato entered a judgment in favor of
all plaintiffs.

Consumer Protection

Robocalls -- In an effort to strengthen the industry's
collaboration with government on robocall enforcement, Attorney
General Nessel's office in early May led a bipartisan coalition of
52 attorneys general in calling on USTelecom and its Industry
Traceback Group (ITG) to bolster technological capabilities to
improve enforcement against illegal robocallers. The coalition's
letter was cosponsored by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.

Price-gouging -- The COVID-19 pandemic led to numerous reports of
price-gouging practices by retailers, and the Attorney General's
office remains active in the enforcement of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act to hold businesses and sellers accountable. The most
recent example of this is an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance
agreement the office reached with Smokehouse Distribution, an
Oakland County business that was selling excessively high-priced
face masks to consumers.

Scams and Consumer Alerts -- The Attorney General's office issued a
number of consumer alerts in 2020 to keep residents aware of the
potential threats they could fall victim to. A variety of scams
surfaced this past year, with one notable example being
door-to-door scammers who were posing as government officials
offering information on stimulus checks or unemployment benefits at
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Election Integrity and Safety

Lawsuits -- Prior to the election, Attorney General Nessel sued the
U.S. Postal Service and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to ensure
mail-in ballots were being properly processed and delivered after
operational changes instituted by the USPS could have resulted in a
significant number of mail-in ballots not being counted.

Security -- While there were a number of attempts to thwart the
will of the people, the Attorney General's office was ready to
defend democracy at every turn. One highlight involves a series of
robocalls that targeted Detroit-area voters seeking to intimidate
them from participating in the election by use of mail-in ballots.
The Attorney General's office launched an investigation and charged
Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl with multiple felonies.

Education -- Working in tandem with Secretary of State Benson to
ensure a safe and secure election, Attorney General Nessel's office
aggressively protected the integrity of the democratic process
while informing the public of their voting rights by hosting town
hall events, informational calls and more. [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 ***